HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.11975 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2011 **** Nirmaljit Kaur . . . . Petitioner VS. 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? **** Present: Mr. PC Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 28.12.2007 vide which her pay has been re-fixed on account of withdrawal of benefit of proficiency step up and consequential recovery of Rs.53504/- has been ordered to be effected from her. (2). During the course of hearing, it is pointed out that this Court vide order dated 31.03.2010 passed in CWP No.11289 of 2009 titled as Tarlochan Singh Bedi v. State of Punjab and others has constituted an Officers’ Committee to look into the grievances of the personnel working in the PWD (B&R) Department, Government of Punjab. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present petition qua re-fixation be disposed of by CWP No.11975 of 2010.doc - 2 – relegating the same to the afore-said Committee, who shall examine the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. (3). As prayed for by the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Officers’ Committee constituted in Tarlochan Singh Bedi’s case (supra) to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s claim within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled to the benefit, the same shall be released in her favour forthwith but not later than two months thereafter. (4). In so far as recovery of Rs.53504/- from the petitioner is concerned, applying the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 as well as the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana and others v. Israil Khan and others, (2010) 1 SCC 440, I am of the considered view that no recovery can be effected from the petitioner. (5). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned order to the extent ordering recovery is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner within a period of CWP No.11975 of 2010.doc - 3 – three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 21.07.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge