IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 14357 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 JASWANT SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. DD Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) In this petition, challenge is to order dated 28.7.2009 (Annexure P-1) whereunder the office of Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation (RWS) Division, Faridkot, has stated that proficiency step-up under Assured Career Progression Scheme was wrongly granted to the petitioner on completion of 16/24 years of service. On refixation of pay, a sum of Rs.82,043/- is required to be recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No. 14357 of 2009 2 had not played any role by way of fraud or misrepresentation of facts so as to actuate wrong fixation of pay and, therefore, the recovery cannot be effected from the petitioner. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others) decided on 22.5.2009. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to distinguish the judgment in Budh Ram's case (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further not been able to draw the attention of the Court towards any material or evidence to indicate that the petitioner had played any fraud or had misrepresented the facts, on account of which the pay was erroneously fixed. In view of the above, in my considered opinion, the matter is covered by the judgment rendered in Budh Ram's case (supra). The petition is, accordingly, allowed to the limited extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner of the amount already released in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, it is directed that in the interregnum period, if some amount has been recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him within 4 months of receipt of copy of this order. September 17, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?