IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16354 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 13, 2010 Sher Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing action of the respondents in withdrawing the benefit of three increments given to the petitioner on his acquiring higher qualification of Giani. The impugned action has been taken after retirement of the petitioner and recovery is being effected. 2. Notice of motion. 3. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, CWP No.16354 of 2010 [2] accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Requisite number of copies of the writ petition have been handed over to learned counsel for the respondents in Court. 4. On request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up at this stage itself for final adjudication in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent- State contends that the matter can be referred to the Committee constituted by this Court while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.8701 of 2009 titled `Dalbir Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab’, decided on 8.3.2010. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he would have no grievance if the Committee considers the case of the petitioner. 7. In Dalbir Singh’s case (supra), the following has been held:- “[5] During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that since the question as to whether or not the petitioners were entitled to the grant of additional increments can be resolved only on the deep scrutiny of facts and records, the matter may be relegated to the Officers' Committee constituted by this Court vide order dated 02.03.2010 passed in CWP No. 16323 of 2008 [Smt. Sudarshana Devi & Anr. V State of Punjab & Ors.]. [6]. Ordered accordingly. CWP No.16354 of 2010 [3] [7]. Adverting to the additional contentions, I find that the respondents have no where averred that the peti- tioners misrepresented the facts or played fraud or decep- tion to seek monetary gains, no recovery, therefore, can be affected from them as held by the Full Bench Budh Ram's case [supra]. The impugned recovery orders, are accord- ingly quashed. If any recovery has already been affected, the respondents are directed to refund the same within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. [8]. So far as the non-observance of principles of natural justice is concerned, in view of the fact that the matter has been referred to the Officers'-Committee con- stituted under the orders of this Court, it is directed that the said Committee shall decide the petitioners' claim afresh and objectively, uninfluenced of the reasons as- signed in the impugned orders. The Officers'-Committee shall ensure that the petitioners are personally heard may be in a representative capacity and the judicial precedents cited on their behalf are taken into consideration before arriving at the final decision. The Committee shall make its recommendations as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. [9]. It is made clear that while the petitioners, till the Officers' Committee takes a fresh decision, shall con- tinue to draw their retiral benefits as per the re-fixed Pay/Pay Scales, however, if the Committee recommends in their favour, it is directed that the Competent Authority shall ordinarily accept such recommendations unless it disagrees for the reasons to be recorded in writing. On acceptance of the Committee's recommendations, the peti- tioner shall be entitled to the consequential revision of their retiral benefits including pension and arrears thereof shall also be paid to them within a period of six months of such decision. [10]. Since some of the petitioners have not been granted the retiral benefits so far, the Accountant Gen- eral, Punjab, is directed to release the pensionary benefits of such employees on the basis of the re-fixed pay/Pay Scales, subject to final outcome of the matter. Disposed of. ” 8. In view of the above, this petition CWP No.16354 of 2010 [4] is disposed of in terms of order dated 8.3.2010 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.8701 of 2009 titled `Dalbir Singh & others vs. State of Punjab’. (AJAI LAMBA) September 13, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?