IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17009 of 2010 Date of Decision: 24.08.2011 Inderjit Singla ...Petitioner Versus Secretary Irrigation Works, 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. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Kavita Arora, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. **** SURYA KANT .J.(Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by withdrawal of the benefit of proficiency step up and consequential recovery as ordered vide impugned order dated 14.06.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner while confining his claim qua recovery only states that the petitioner has never misled the authorities or played any fraud or deceived them to secure the undeserving monetary benefits. Respondents in their reply have no where alleged that the petitioner is guilty of mis-representation of facts and/or duping the authorities. That being so, no recovery can be allowed to be effected from the petitioner as ruled by a Full Bench of this Court in case Budh Ram and others V. State of Haryana and others 2009(3) P.L.R. 511. CWP No. 17009 of 2010 [2] For the reasons stated, the writ petition is allowed in part and the recovery order dated 14.6.2010 (Annexure P-6) is hereby quashed and the recovery, if any, already made is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (SURYA KANT) 24.08.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'