IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.9495 of 2004 Date of Decision : May 10, 2011. Manjit Singh Gill and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional AG, 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) The petitioners seek quashing of the orders dated 21.3.2003 and 30.6.2003 (Annexure P-9 & P-10, respectively) whereby the payment of gratuity has been with-held with a view to effect recovery after re- fixation of the pay of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset confines the claim of the petitioners to the challenge against recovery only. Suffice it to mention that the petitioners joined the services of the respondents as Temporary Engineers/Sub Divisional Engineers and were later on promoted as Executive Engineers. The petitioners earned 9 to CWP No.9495 of 2004 [2] 10 increments in the senior scale of the Executive Engineers before 1.1.1996, namely, the cut off date for the purpose of revision of the pay scales under the Amended Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 notified on 16.1.1998 but enforced retrospectively from the above stated cut off date, i.e. 1.1.1996. It appears that when the pay of the petitioners was revised under the above stated revised pay scales, an alleged irregularity in the matter of grant of 9-10 increments to them was detected and pursuant thereto, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners. The pay of the petitioners thereafter was adversely affected and was re-fixed at Rs.14,300/- from Rs.15,500/- vide order dated 30.1.2003. As a consequence thereto, the recovery orders have also been passed against the petitioners. In the reply-affidavit, the respondents though have justified the re-fixation of the petitioners' pay, however, it is nowhere mentioned that the petitioners mis-represented the fact or deceived the authorities to gain monetary benefits. That being so, the challenge of the petitioners against the recovery falls under three instances carved out by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333. Following the dictum of law laid down in Budh Ram's case (supra), the writ petition is allowed to the extent of the recovery sought to be effected from the petitioners. Consequently, the recovery orders are hereby quashed. It is directed that if any amount has been recovered from the petitioners, the same shall be refunded to them within a period of three CWP No.9495 of 2004 [3] months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. May 10, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE