IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 8865 of 2004 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 12, 2009 SUKHDEV SINGH & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. NS Kandhola, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) CM 11704 of 2009 The prayer made in the application is for fixing an actual date of hearing in the main writ petition. It has been pleaded that the case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP 12630 of 2008 (Sohan Lal and others v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 30.4.2008. Civil Writ Petition No. 8865 of 2004 (O&M) 2 Notice of the application. On the asking of the Court, Shri B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard. The application is allowed. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for hearing. CWP 8865 of 2004 This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order of recovery of excess payment made to the petitioners in view of fixing of pay vide order dated 18.10.2003. It has been pleaded in the petition that the petitioners were appointed as Constables in Police department and were promoted to the posts of Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector, in due course of time. Instructions dated 21.6.1990 were issued for removal of anomaly by stepping up the pay of senior Government employees drawing less pay than their juniors. The relevant portion of the instructions has been extracted in para-3 of the petition. Subsequently, a similar situation again arose, whereupon instructions dated 17.11.1993 (Annexure P-1) were issued to clarify the position in regard to removal of anomaly whereunder senior employees were getting less pay than their juniors due to early accrual of annual increment, grant of proficiency step-up, increment on promotion, etc. The instructions were circulated to the effect that pay of senior employees has Civil Writ Petition No. 8865 of 2004 (O&M) 3 to be stepped up to the level of pay drawn by the juniors, from the date such discrepancy arose. It seems that some audit objection was raised. Without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the order (Annexure P-2) was issued thereby reducing the pay of the petitioners. The respondents directed the Accounts Branch to effect recovery from the pay of the petitioners at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. A Pay Slip, showing the recovery, has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. It has been pleaded in the petition that the fixation of pay was not on account of any misrepresentation made by the petitioners or any fraud played by the petitioners. The petitioners have not concealed any fact from the respondents. It has been further pleaded that the case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP 12630 of 2008 (Sohan Lal and others v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 30.4.2008. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to distinguish the facts nor dispute that the case is covered by the judgment rendered in Sohan Lal's case (supra). Resultantly, this petition is allowed in the same terms as the judgment rendered in CWP 12630 of 2008 (Sohan Lal and others v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 30.4.2008. August 12, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?