IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15047 of 2006 Date of decision: 4th October, 2010 Munish Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. H.S. Saini, Advocate for Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, a prayer has been made that impugned order dated 2nd August, 2006 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondents No.2 and 3, whereby special pay drawn by the petitioner was stopped, be quashed and the recovery ordered in pursuance thereof be held to be bad. Briefly stated, petitioner joined the respondent-Police Department as a Clerk through Staff Selection Board, Haryana in the year 1971. He was promoted as Steno-typist and thereafter, as a Junior Scale Stenographer. He was further promoted as Senior Scale Stenographer and then as a Personal Assistant in the year 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Superintendent and later-on in the year 2000 as Deputy Superintendent-cum-Personal Assistant. On his promotion as Deputy Superintendent-cum-Personal Assistant in the pay- scale of Rs.5500-9000, the petitioner was also drawing Rs.150/- per month as a special pay. On 2nd August, 2006, the impugned order (Annexure P-7) was passed ordering that the petitioner was not entitled to Civil Writ Petition No.15047 of 2006 special pay of Rs.150/- per month. It be stopped forthwith and recovery of the drawn amount of special pay from the petitioner be made. Hence, the present petition. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner has retired, so he will not press for the prayer of grant of special pay of Rs.150/-. However, he states that the special pay was awarded and paid by the Department without any misrepresentation, fraud or deception on the part of the petitioner, thus, it cannot effect recovery of the amount already paid. To fortify this submission, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in ‘Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others’ 2009 (4) SLR 298. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Budh Ram’s case (supra). Hence, impugned order (Annexure P-7) so far as it withdraws the special pay of Rs.150/- is upheld, but the recovery ordered in pursuance thereof is hereby quashed. Any recovery qua that, if already made, be refunded to the petitioner. With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 4, 2010 rps 2