IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4056 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 28, 2010 Mohan Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Puran Chand Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner claims refixation of pay after giving benefit of proficiency of step-up/increment(s) to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are CWP No.4056 of 2009 [2] ad-idem to say that the matter can be considered by the Committee constituted under orders passed by this Court while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.18754 of 2007 titled `Amarjit Singh vs. State of Punjab & others’, decided on 31.3.2010. 3. From Amarjit Singh’s case (supra), the following needs to be extracted:- “So far as challenge to the recovery is concerned, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy is squarely answered in favour of the petitioners by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram v Sate of Haryana & Ors. 2009[3] PLR, 511. Consequently, the recovery orders are hereby quashed. Recovery, if any, effected from the petitioners, shall be refunded preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Adverting to the contention that the petitioners were rightly granted the benefit of proficiency step-up or their seniority was accordingly fixed, in my considered view, their respective claims can not be decided in isolation without hearing the other effected persons and/or ascertaining the correct facts from the record. Such an exercise can be effectively undertaken by a Departmental Committee as well. Accordingly, it is directed that let there be a Department Committee to be headed by an officer not below the rank of the Special/Additional or Joint Secretary of the Health Department along with two other officers, one of whom shall be from the Directorate of Health Services, Punjab, who shall consider the respective claims of the petitioners and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Suffice it to say that in case the Committee accepts the petitioners’ claim, the benefits earlier granted to them shall be restored and consequential arrears and/or revised retiral benefits shall be paid. However, till the Committee takes an appropriate decision, the retiral benefits shall be released, if already not released, as per the revised pay but without prejudice to the petitioners’ claim to be decided by the Committee. CWP No.4056 of 2009 [3] Disposed of. Dasti.” 4. The petition is disposed of in terms of order passed by this Court while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.18754 of 2007 titled `Amarjit Singh vs. State of Punjab & others’, decided on 31.3.2010, relevant portion whereof has been extracted above. (AJAI LAMBA) September 28, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?