CWP No. 22730 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22730 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: December 20, 2010 Jagdish Lal Khokhar and others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-2 dated 23.12.2009, order dated 17.12.2009 Annexure P-3 and order dated 17.12.2009 Annexure P-4. 2. The effect of impugned order is that benefit of proficiency step up under ACP scheme already given to the petitioners on completion of 24 and 32 years of service have been withdrawn after retirement of the petitioners. Consequent recovery has also been ordered. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Requisite number of copies of the petition have been handed over to learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue raised in CWP No. 22730 of 2010 2 the petition would be covered by decision dated 02.03.2010 rendered in CWP No. 15245 of 2009 entitled Sukhdarshan Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others. 6. It has been admitted by learned counsel for the respondents that impugned orders entail serious civil consequences and could not have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In such circumstances, the respondents need to address the issue afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 7. In Sukhdarshan Singh case (supra), the following has been held:- “(8) The writ petition is accordingly allowed; the orders qua recovery of the excess payment of the Proficiency Step-up are hereby quashed. Recovery, if any, already effected, shall be refunded to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, the petitioners shall continue to draw their pension/retiral benefits as per the refixed/reduced pay subject to the final decision that the competent authority shall take pursuant to the show cause notice(s) to be served on them. (9) Since the respondents have not filed any counter reply/ affidavit, it is clarified that if, on verification of the records, it is found that the petitioners had actually misrepresented the facts and/or had obtained the monetary benefits through fraud or deception, the respondents shall be at liberty to seek review of this order qua the recovery part within a period of six months from CWP No. 22730 of 2010 3 the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (10) Ordered accordingly. (11) Dasti.” 8. Since it is the conceded position that the issue raised in the petition is covered by decision dated 02.03.2010 rendered in CWP No. 15245 of 2009 entitled Sukhdarshan Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others. this petition is allowed in the same terms, operative portion whereof has been extracted above. 20.12.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?