IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21356 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 01, 2010 Shakuntla Devi .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order Annexure P-4 vide which benefit of proficiency step up on completion of 16/24 years of service has been withdrawn. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in relation to the same Department, a litigation was brought to this Court in the context of similar issue. A Committee has been formed in the Department to re-address the CWP No.21356 of 2010 [2] grievance of persons like the petitioner. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents. Requisite number of copies of the petition have been given to learned counsel for the respondents. 5. On request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today itself in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Heard. 7. Learned counsel for the parties are 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. 8. 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, CWP No.21356 of 2010 [3] 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. Disposed of. Dasti.” 9. 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) December 01, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?