IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18444 of 2008 Date of Decision : March 08, 2010. Vinay Kapoor .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr.N.D.Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal, 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) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.18444 and 18674 of 2008 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No.18444 of 2008. The petitioner, who retired w.e.f. 30.11.2007 from the post of Executive Engineer, is aggrieved at the order dated 11.9.2008 (Annexure P-15) whereby recovery to the tune of Rs.2,62, 453/- is sought to be effected from him after post-poning the date of his promotion to PSE-II C.W.P.No .18444 of 2008 2 service and consequential re-fixation of his seniority with cumulative effects. The petitioner joined the Department as a Junior Engineer on 17.8.1973. He was later on promoted as S.D.E., PSE-Class-II firstly on temporary basis and after successful completion of probation period, he was made permanent on 2.5.1984. The petitioner was later on promoted to PSE-Class-I and retired in that capacity. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether on re-fixation of seniority and consequential post-ponement of the dates of promotions, can the ACP/Proficiency step-up earlier granted to the petitioner while in service, be withdrawn retrospectively after the retirement? In the counter-reply, the respondents have nowhere averred that the petitioner ever mis-represented the facts or played any fraud to secure out of turn service benefits. The petitioner was promoted to Class-II and Class-I posts pursuant to the decision taken by the Competent Authority including the Departmental Promotion Committee who recommended these promotions after due deliberations and within the prescribed quota. Even if there was an error committed in the decision making process, the same is not attributable to the petitioner. The belated or drawing the re-consideration that there was no vacancy within the quota available to promote the petitioner at the time of his earlier promotions and/or consequential re-fixation of his pay etc., thus, cannot be allowed to sustain. For the same reasons, no recovery can also be effected, as ruled by C.W.P.No .18444 of 2008 3 a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333. For the reasons afore-stated, both the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders like dated 11.9.2008 (Annexure P-15) are hereby quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to draw their retiral benefits including the pension which were earlier fixed before passing of the impugned orders. Dasti. March 08, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE