IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10574 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 28th May, 2010. Kanwal Sehgal Petitioner through Mr. S.S.Behl, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] Notice of motion. Mr. B.S.Chahal, learned DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Keeping in view the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to ask the respondents to file any counter-affidavit/reply at this stage. The petitioner retired as a Head Master of the Education Department, Punjab. He is aggrieved by the re-fixation of his pay on withdrawal of benefit of proficiency step-up increments earlier granted to him and consequential recovery sought to be effected. It is not in dispute that similar controversy has been referred for adjudication to an Officers'-Committee constituted in terms of the order dated 02.03.2010 passed by this Court in CWP No. 16323 of 2008 [Smt. Sudarshana Devi & Anr. V State of Punjab & Ors.] wherein it has also been held that no recovery can be effected from the retired teachers like the petitioner as they are not accused of playing any fraud etc. while seeking removal of anomaly in their pay. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the recovery order against the petitioner is also set aside and his claim regarding grant of proficiency step-up increments is directed to be considered by the Officers' Committee, in accordance with the Rules/Government instructions and keeping in view the specific facts of the case. The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. Dasti. May 28, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE