IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1829 of 2009 Date of Decision : February 15, 2010. Makhan Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.S.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, 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) The petitioner is aggrieved at the re-fixation of his pay, re- determination of the proficiency step-up and consequential recovery of over Rs.61273/- ordered against him. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their reply-affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his claim qua the recovery only and has no objection against the re-fixation of his pay or the proficiency step up. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the C.W.P.No .1829 of 2009 2 records. The respondents have nowhere averred that the petitioner ever misled the authorities and/or concealed the material facts for monetary gains. The recovery sought to be effected from the petitioner, therefore, is liable to be annulled in the light of the principles laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. While re- fixation of the petitioner's pay or the proficiency step-up is up-held, the consequential recovery notice is hereby set-aside. It is further directed that in case 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. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 15-02-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE