IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14502 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 03.11.2009 Darshan Singh Walia .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. M.S. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.8.2007 (Annexure P-3), passed by the General Manager, Milk Plant, Sangrur, whereby the recovery of Rs. 29,503/- has been ordered against the petitioner, on the ground that vide letter dated 12.8.1996, he was wrongly granted the proficiency step up with effect from 1.6.1996 under the old Proficiency Step Up Scheme, circulated vide letter dated 20.11.1989, whereas as per the new Proficiency Step Up Scheme, circulated vide letter dated 5.4.2001, he was not entitled for the said benefit. CWP No. 14502 of 2007 -2- Undisputedly, in the present case, vide order dated 12.8.1996, the petitioner was granted 8 year proficiency step up with effect from 1.6.1996, according to the criteria laid down in the old Proficiency Step Up Scheme. According to the said criteria, 70% ACRs were required to be favourable without any adverse remarks and two ACRs out of the last three years must be Good. Since the petitioner was fulfilling the said criteria, he was granted the benefit of proficiency step up with effect from 1.6.1996, as per the said scheme. Lateron, as per the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission of Punjab, revised ACP Scheme for grant of proficiency step up was approved for the employees of Milkfed and Milk Unions w.e.f. 1.6.1996, vide letter dated 5.4.2001. According to the criteria approved for the grant of proficiency step up under the new scheme, 50% ACRs must be Good, including at least two ACRs out of the last three reports. It is the admitted position that the petitioner did not fulfill the aforesaid criteria for the grant of proficiency step up under the new scheme, at the relevant time, therefore, he was not entitled for the grant of proficiency step up with effect from 1.6.1996, which was granted to him vide letter dated 12.8.1996. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.8.2007 ordering recovery of the aforesaid amount from the petitioner was passed. Counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1994 (5) SLR 753 and the Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) SCT 333, submits that the CWP No. 14502 of 2007 -3- petitioner did not play any role for grant of the proficiency step up with effect from 1.6.1996. He did not make any mis-representation or played any fraud in this regard. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, no recovery could have been effected from the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents has very fairly conceded that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions, as the said benefit to the petitioner was granted by the respondents themselves, without any mis-representation made or fraud played by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid conceded factual and legal position, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.8.2007 (Annexure P-3), whereby recovery of Rs. 29,503/- has been ordered against the petitioner, is set aside. If the said amount or any part thereof has been recovered from the petitioner, the respondents are directed to refund the same, within a period of three months. November 03, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE