IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20977 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 12, 2009 Sant Ram .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) The petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenges Order dated 21.11.2008 (Annexure P-2). Perusal of Annexure P-2 indicates that on an objection having been raised by the Chief Accountant General, Punjab, in regard to benefit given to the petitioner under Proficiency Step Up Scheme on completion of 8/16/24 years of service, the pay has been refixed and recovery has been ordered. CWP No.20977 of 2008 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, contends that the petitioner confines the prayer in challenge to recovery only. In regard to the limited prayer, learned counsel states that the benefits were released by the respondents. The petitioner had not actuated the release of benefits under the Proficiency Step Up Scheme by way of fraud or misrepresentation and therefore, the matter would be covered by judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others). Learned counsel for the respondents states that indeed, there is no material to show that the petitioner had played fraud or misrepresented facts for initial fixation of pay. In view of the above, it remains the conceded position that the matter is covered by Budh Ram’s case (supra). Considering the above, the petition is allowed in terms of judgment dated 22.5.2009 rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others). CWP No.20977 of 2008 [3] It is held that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Consequently, the respondents are directed that if any recovery has been effected from the petitioner, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (AJAI LAMBA) November 12, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?