IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.3095 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 13, 2011. Bikram Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.M.K.Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner was working as Heavy Mechanic on work- charge basis with respondent No.3, namely, the Executive Engineer, Field Mechanical & C.P. Division, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpur Kandi Township, Pathankot, District Gurdspur and has retired w.e.f. 31.03.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. He seeks quashing of the orders dated 19.5.2010 CWP No.3095 of 2011 [2] (Annexure P-1) vide which the pay scale of Rs.1200-2100 granted in view of the 3rd Punjab Pay Commission Report, as accepted and implemented by the Punjab Government vide notification dated 9.9.1998, has been ordered to be withdrawn. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no recovery can be effected from the petitioner as laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333 as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2010) 1 SCC 440 (Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and others versus Israil Khan and others). For the reasons aforestated, the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 19.5.2010 (Annexure P-1) is quashed to that effect and the respondents are directed to release the with-held amount as well as the retiral dues of the petitioner, except in the circumstance where the petitioner is found guilty of mis-representing the facts or playing any fraud with the authorities to gain monetary benefits, within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. In the later event, the respondents shall be obligated to pass a speaking order. Dasti. July 13, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE