Punjab State Power Corporation Rs 9 Lakh Disabled Clerks Retiral

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently pulled up Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, holding that recovery of Rs 9.20 lakh from the retiral dues of a disabled employee for not passing a computer literacy test was impermissible where applicable policies granted exemption from such tests. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while hearing a plea filed by retired clerk Joga Singh, said that the corporation is “expected” to ensure due compliance and should not compel similarly situated disabled employees to approach this court for identical reliefs. “Once exemption from passing the computer literacy test/typing test is available to a disabled employee in accordance with the applicable instructions and policy decisions, denial of consequential service benefits or recovery from retiral dues on account of non-qualification of such test would be wholly impermissible,” the May 29 order read. The high court was hearing a petition filed by Singh, who sought exemption from the computer literacy test and challenged the corporation’s decision to recover Rs 9.20 lakh from his pensionary and retiral benefits. The court observed that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra (a whole or untouched matter) in view of the judgment rendered by the court in another case. The high court disposed of the petition with a direction to the corporation to complete the exercise of re-fixation of pension and release all consequential arrears within three months. The court also warned that any future deviation from the settled legal position may invite appropriate orders, including imposition of exemplary costs. Advocate A K Walia, representing the petitioner, argued that the corporation itself issued an office order dated February 12, adopting the state government instructions granting total exemption from passing the computer literacy test to employees suffering from disabilities. It was also argued that the controversy involved in the present petition was squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this court in another case decided on March 12. Appearing for the corporation, advocate Ferry Sofat submitted that the said action challenged in the present petition has since been withdrawn. It was further submitted that the amount recovered from