IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.10990 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 18, 2010 SMT. SNEH LATA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has been filed in court today, which is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that in relation to the same department i.e. Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, this Court while dealing with CWP No.18754 of 2007 (Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 31.3.2010, has relegated the petitioner to a departmental Committee. This matter can also be relegated to the said Committee for taking a decision, in the context of the case of the petitioner. 3. I have considered the issued. Civil Writ Petition No.10990 of 2009 2 4. 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 State 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, 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 Civil Writ Petition No.10990 of 2009 3 prejudice to the petitioners' claim to be decided by the Committee. Disposed of. Dasti.” 5. The petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in Amarjit Singh's case (supra), relevant portion whereof has been extracted above. August 18, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?