CWP No.1642 of 2004.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.1642 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.03.2010 **** Harbans Kaur . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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? **** Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner has two-fold grievances. Firstly, she impugns the reduction in her pay with retrospective effect and secondly, she questions the consequential recovery sought to be effected (2). Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-reply/affidavit. (3). As regards the first issue, the contention raised by the both the parties are founded upon certain set of facts which need to be verified. (4). So far as the second issue regarding recovery is concerned, the respondents have nowhere averred that the petitioner ever concealed the facts or played fraud or deception upon the authorities to secure any monetary CWP No.1642 of 2004.doc - 2 – gains. No recovery, therefore, can be allowed to be effected from her as ruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (CWP No.2799 of 2008 decided on 22.05.2009). The order qua recovery cannot sustain and is hereby quashed. The recovery, if any already made, shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (5). As regards the first issue, it is not in dispute that the rival contentions are founded upon certain set of facts which need to be verified by the authorities. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction that let the claim of the petitioner regarding grant of one additional increment and consequential refixation of pay, be examined by the Officers’ Committee constituted under the orders of this Court on 02.03.2010 passed in CWP No. 16323 of 2008 (Smt. Sudarshana Devi and another vs. the State of Punjab and others) . The said Committee shall examine and dispose of the petitioner’s claim as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Committee shall be at liberty to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before making its recommendations. CWP No.1642 of 2004.doc - 3 – (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 15.03.2010 vishal shonkar