CWP No.20137 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.20137 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.05.2010 **** Din Dayal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner initially joined as Junior Engineer in the Markfed, Punjab on 19.12.1968 and was relieved of his duties to join a new assignment in the PWD (B&R) Department, Government of Punjab where he is alleged to have applied through proper channel. The petitioner, who has retired as Sub Divisional Engineer from the respondent-Department w.e.f. 31.07.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation, now seeks quashing of the orders dated 12.03.2009 & CWP No.20137 of 2009.doc - 2 – 19.03.2009 (Annexure P4 & P5, respectively) vide which his pay has been refixed/reduced and as a result thereto, recovery of Rs.4745/- has already been effected from his Gratuity. He seeks a direction to the respondents to refix his pay by granting the benefit of service rendered by him w.e.f. 19.12.1968 to 16.09.1972 and to refund the amount so recovered from his Gratuity along with interest. (2). This Court vide order dated 31.03.2010 passed in CWP No.11289 of 2009 titled as Tarlochan Singh Bedi v. State of Punjab and others has constituted an Officers’ Committee to look into the grievances of the personnel working in the PWD (B&R) Department, Government of Punjab. (3). As prayed for by the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Officers’ Committee constituted in Tarlochan Singh Bedi’s case (supra) to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s claim within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled to the benefit, the same shall be CWP No.20137 of 2009.doc - 3 – released in his favour forthwith but not later than two months thereafter. (4). In so far as recovery of Rs.4745/- from the petitioner is concerned, the same cannot sustain in view of the parameters laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511. Accordingly, the order qua recovery is quashed and the respondents are directed to refund the amount so recovered to the petitioner within the above-stipulated period. (5). Ordered accordingly. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 17.05.2010 vishal shonkar