Baijit Singh vs The Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Others

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.

CM No. 15801 of 2013

This application has been filed for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased, Baljit Singh.

For the reasons mentioned therein, CM is allowed. Legal representatives (the detail as mentioned in Para No. 2 of the writ petition) are taken on record. It has further been mentioned that son of the deceased petitioner namely, Sukhwinder Singh has given power of attorney to his brother namely Jatinder Singh to pursue the present case, attached with the petition, which is taken on record.

Amended memo of parties is also taken on record.

CM No. 13781 of 2010

For the reasons mentioned therein, CM is allowed. Judgment of Sh. Jagdeep Sood, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana is taken on record.

CWP No. 8955 of 2000

This order shall dispose of both the aforesaid cases with a common judgment as they have arisen out of the same questions of fact. Facts are taken from CWP No. 8955 of 2000 for adjudication.

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 22/25.05.2000 whereby Baljit Singh was retired on 28.02.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. The excess amount of pay and allowances after 1st March, 1998 were to be recovered from the dues of the petitioner. The dispute in the present case is whether the petitioner''s date of birth is 11.02.1940 as per date mentioned in the discharge slip issued by the Army on 11.02.1946. He continued to work as Inspector Grade II till May 20, 2000 with the respondent-Corporation under the assumption that retirement age was fixed as 60 years. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed ordering the recovery of pay for the period of two years, and accordingly, the said order was challenged on the ground of being violative of principle''s of natural justice.

In the written statement filed by the respondents, the plea taken is that the petitioner has not exhausted his alternative remedy of appeal to the appellate Forum of the Corporation. The petitioner had joined as Shop Assistant Grade-I and his date of birth was 11.02.1946 and the entry regarding his date of birth in the discharge certificate was denied and it was stated that he had tampered with the official record and given wrong information in order to conceal his correct date of birth. The impugned order was accordingly, justified.

It transpires from the record that on the same set of allegations, the petitioner was also subjected to criminal trial and was convicted under Section 420, IPC by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana and was ordered to undergo SI for a period of 01 year. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner has expired on 21.05.2013.

In order to effect the recovery of the said excels amount i.e. salary allowances paid to the petitioner for extra two years, the respondent Corporation has also filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 2,82,455/- in which an application for stay on the ground of pungency of the present writ petition was dismissed. Civil Revision No. 3267 of 2011 has been filed against the said order dated 31.3.2011. The said civil revision was ordered to be heard along with the present writ petition and while issuing notice of motion on 17.11.2011, further proceedings before the trial Court had been stayed.

After hearing learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that the matter qua recovery is pending adjudication before civil court and the L.Rs. are already contesting the matter before the said court.

Accordingly, liberty is granted to the legal representatives of the deceased employee to agitate their rights before the civil court as to whether the Corporation is entitled to make any recovery for the period which the deceased had worked and served the Corporation. On the criminal side, the said employee has already been convicted, however, mere conviction will not prevent the legal representatives to raise the adequate defense which will be adjudicated upon by the civil court, whether Corporation is entitled to recover the excess amount from the legal heirs of deceased employee who had admittedly worked for the said period. Whether the Corporation is entitled to recover the excess amount as a whole, solely on the ground that the deceased had worked extra two years continuously which is not denied by the Corporation would be the issue which can be thrashed out at the level of the Civil Court. With the aforesaid observation, this petition and revision petition are disposed of. Interim orders passed in both cases are vacated.