CWP No.16941 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16941 of 2009 Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 **** Ranjit Singh & Others . . . . . Petitioners 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. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWPs No.16941 of 2009 & 876 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both cases. The petitioners herein are the serving/retired officers/officials of the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Punjab. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.16941 of 2009. (2). The petitioners – the employees of the respondent-Department, are aggrieved at the impugned action of the respondents, whereby, their pay has been reduced/refixed w.e.f. 01.01.1986 after withdrawal of the benefit of Proficiency Step-up and ACP and consequential recovery is sought to be effected from their pay/Gratuity. (3). The petitioners’ further grievance is that no show cause notice was served upon them before passing the impugned orders. CWP No.16941 of 2009.doc - 2 – (4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders and other material on record. (5). Suffice it to observe that the impugned orders have serious civil consequences as the same not only entail recovery from the petitioners but have also reduced their pay/retiral benefits. The impugned action could not have been taken against the petitioners without any show cause notice to them. (6). For the reason afore-stated, the impugned order dated 23.04.2008 (Annexure P8) cannot sustain in law and are hereby quashed with the following directions:- i. the respondents shall issue a show cause notice, if so required, to the petitioners disclosing the reason(s) for withdrawal of the benefits earlier granted to them; ii. the petitioners shall be granted four weeks’ time to submit their reply(ies), if any; iii. the competent authority shall thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with the Government Policy/rules and the decisions of this Court relied upon by both the sides; iv. The final decision shall be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of submission of the reply (ies) to the show cause notice(s); (7). Needless to say that should the petitioners’ explanation(s) find favour with the competent authority, in that event their pay/retiral benefits shall be suitably refixed and consequential CWP No.16941 of 2009.doc - 3 – arrears, if any, shall also be paid to them within a period of three months from the date of such determination. (8). However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners does not appear to have misled the authorities nor have misrepresented the facts and since no fraudulent or deceptive motive for gaining any monetary benefit has been attributed to them in the impugned order, I am of the considered view that no recovery ought to be effected from them, as ruled by the Full Bench in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511. (9). The writ petition is accordingly allowed; the orders qua recovery of the excess payment of the Proficiency Step-up are hereby quashed. Recovery, if any, already effected, shall be refunded to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, the petitioners shall continue to draw their pay/retiral benefits as per the refixed/reduced pay subject to the final decision that the competent authority shall take pursuant to the show cause notice(s) to be served on them. (10). Since the respondents have not filed any counter- reply/affidavit, it is clarified that if, on verification of the records, it is found that the petitioners had actually misrepresented the facts and/or had obtained the monetary benefits through fraud or deception, the respondents shall be at liberty to seek review of this order qua the recovery part within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (11). Ordered accordingly. CWP No.16941 of 2009.doc - 4 – (12). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 02.03.2010 vishal shonkar