Civil Writ Petition No.18463 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18463 of 2008 Decided on : 2-09-2009 Gurdip Kaur & others .... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab, Chandigarh & others .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL. Present:- Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the respondents. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J (Oral). The petitioners, who are working as Pharmacists & Staff Nursing Sisters in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and in Government Dental College & Hospital, Patiala, have filed the instant petition. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1998, they were granted the benefit of proficiency step up on completion of 8 & 18 years of service in view of the Government Policy dated 1.12.1988, which was clarified vide instruction dated 10.3.1997. Subsequently, on an audit objection, it was pointed out that the Government employees, who were placed in Senior Scale or Civil Writ Petition No.18463 of 2008 -2- Selection grade, the proficiency step up could have been granted to them only after qualifying 8 & 18 years service from the date of placement in senior scale and selection grade. Keeping in view the said audit objections, vide orders dated 7.11.2006 (Annexures P-3 to P-5), 2.1.2003 (Annexure P-6) and 28.6.2005 (Annexures P- 7 & P-8) respectively, the recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioners, was ordered to be effected from them. The petitioners have challenged those orders in the instant petition. During the course of hearing, counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are not seeking quashing of their re-fixation of the pay. He confines his prayer only to the extent of the recovery made from them on account of the said re-fixation of pay. He submits that no recovery can be made from the petitioners with regard to the excess amount already paid to them. He states that under the wrong interpretation, the respondents themselves have fixed the pay of the petitioners and have granted them the proficiency step up. Since no fraud or misrepresentation has been attributed on the part of the petitioners, as such, they were not in any way responsible for the mistake committed by the respondents. In support of his contention, counsel has relied upon the judgment referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Sahib Ram Vs. State of Hayrana, 1994 (5) SLR 753 and Full Bench judgment passed by this Court in C.W.P. No.2799 of 2008, decided on 22.5.2009 (Budh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others). Civil Writ Petition No.18463 of 2008 -3- Counsel for the respondents has very fairly stated that the petitioners did not play any fraud or made any misrepresentation at the time of fixation of their pay. This fact has also not been disputed in the written statement. Learned counsel could controvert that the case of the petitioners is not covered by the above said judgments. In view of the conceded position that the benefit of proficiency step up was given to the petitioners by the respondents at their own and not due to any fraud or misrepresentation made by the petitioners, this petition deserves to be partly allowed. Consequently, this petition is partly allowed to the extent that no recovery with regard to the excess amount paid to the petitioners due to wrong fixation of pay, could be made from them and if, any amount has already been recovered, the respondents are directed to refund the same to the petitioners within three months. 2nd September, 2009. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) Monika JUDGE