IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16546 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 10, 2010. Darshan Pal .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Ms.Balvinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) In this civil writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order of recovery sought to be effected from him after withdrawing the benefit of proficiency step-up which was earlier granted to him. The petitioner was serving as a Superintendent Grade-II in the office of the District Education Officer (Secondary Education), Faridkot. His pay was stepped-up vide order dated 24.10.1994 in terms of the Government Circular dated 21.6.1990 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Punjab. The petitioner continued to draw salary as per his stepped up pay, firstly as Senior C.W.P.No .16546 of 2003 (O&M) 2 Assistant and thereafter as Superintendent Grade-II. He was served with the impugned order dated 29.9.2003 (Annexure P-8) informing him that the benefit of stepping up of his pay was inadvertently granted to him as there was no case of anomaly in his pay. Consequential recovery has also been ordered against the petitioner, prompting him to approach this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his claim qua the recovery only. She has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333, to urge that no recovery can be effected from the petitioner. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was working as a Senior Assistant and he himself being instrument in getting the monetary benefit, the principles laid down in the afore-stated Full Bench judgment cannot be extended to him. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perusal of the record as well as the plea taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit, I am of the considered view that no recovery can be allowed to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner had merely represented that one of his juniors was drawing higher pay and on consideration of his representation, the Competent Authority stepped-up his pay in order to bring it at par with his junior. It is not the case of the respondents that junior of the petitioner was not drawing more pay than the petitioner. It was for the Competent Authority to see that it was not a case of any anomaly in pay. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be accused of C.W.P.No .16546 of 2003 (O&M) 3 deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to gain undeserving benefit. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part to the extent that while re-fixation of the petitioner's pay and withdrawal of the stepping-up benefit, are upheld but the consequential recovery notice is hereby set-aside. It is further directed that if the respondents have already effected any recovery from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. As the petitioner has meanwhile retired from service, his retiral benefits shall also be re-fixed accordingly. Dasti. 10-02-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE