CWP No.16920 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16920 of 2009 Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 **** Sparsh Kumari and others . . . . . Petitioners VS. State of 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. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP No.14637, 16920 & 17986 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.16920 of 2009. (2). The petitioners in these cases are retired/serving employees of the Health and Family Welfare CWP No.16920 of 2009.doc - 2 – Department, Government of Punjab. They have a common grievance, namely, withdrawal of benefit of Proficiency Step-up as well as ACP earlier granted to them and consequential recovery sought to be effected from them. (3). Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter- affidavit. (4). It is the conceded position that no show cause notice was served upon the petitioners before passing the impugned orders. Suffice it to observe that the impugned orders have serious civil consequences inasmuch as not only recovery is sought to be effected from the petitioners but their monthly emoluments and/or retiral benefits have also been adversely affected. The impugned action could not, therefore, be taken against the petitioners without observing the principles of natural justice. (5). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petitions are allowed in part; the impugned orders dated 11.08.2009; 1502.2008; 27.11.2007; 29.01.2008; and 21.08.2009 (Annexure P3; P4; P5; P6; and P7, respectively) are hereby quashed with the following directions:- CWP No.16920 of 2009.doc - 3 – i. the respondents shall issue show cause notices, if so required, to the petitioners disclosing the cause of withdrawal of the benefit earlier granted to them; ii. the petitioners shall be granted four weeks’ time to submit their reply; iii. the competent authority shall thereafter pass a speaking order after considering the matter in accordance with the Government Policy/rules and the decisions of this Court; iv. The final decision shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of submission of the reply to the show cause notices; (6). Needless to say that in case the petitioners’ explanation is accepted by the competent authority in that event their pay/retiral benefits shall be suitably refixed and the consequential arrears shall also be paid to them within a period of four months from the date of such determination. (7). However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners never misled the authorities nor misrepresented the facts and it is not the case of the respondents that they ever played any fraud or CWP No.16920 of 2009.doc - 4 – deception to gain the said monetary benefit, I am of the considered view that no recovery can be allowed to be effected from them, as ruled by the Full Bench of this Court in case of Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.2799 of 2008) decided on 22.05.2009. (8). The orders qua recovery of the Proficiency Step-up qua all the petitioners are accordingly hereby quashed. Recovery, if any, already effected from them, shall be refunded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, the petitioner(s) shall continue to draw their pay and/or retiral benefits as per the refixed/reduced rates subject to the final decision that the competent authority shall take pursuant to fresh show cause notices to them. (9). Ordered accordingly. (10). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 02.03.2010 vishal shonkar