IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.18684 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 25, 2011 PARDUMAN SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. RK Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed by Parduman Singh, retired Science Master, Government Senior Secondary School, Tanda Ram Sahai, District Hoshiarpur, with a prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing letter dated 2.11.2006 (Annexure P-4), whereby it has been directed that pay of the petitioner be reduced and recovery be effected. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that considering the peculiar nature of similar cases, this Court while dealing with CWP 16323 of 2008 (Smt.Sudarshana Devi and another v. State of Punjab and others), decided on 2.3.2010, has directed the cases to be considered by the Officers' Committee constituted under the directions of this Court. The case of the petitioner be also decided in the same terms. Civil Writ Petition No.18684 of 2006 2 3 Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that, indeed, the case of the petitioner would be covered by decision rendered in Smt.Sudarshana Devi's case (supra). 4 In Smt.Sudarshana Devi's case (supra), the following has been held:- “(20).Having regard to the umpteen number of cases pertaining to the interpretation of various sets of Government Instructions/Policies and Rules and the consequential benefits flowing therefrom, especially to the Teachers/Masters etc. who have since retired from service(s), it appears to me that the individual claims need to be thoroughly examined by an Officers’ Committee to be headed by Respondent No.2 along with two Nominees, preferably from the Finance and the Personnel Departments, respectively. The Officers’ Committee shall issue a public notice inviting objection(s)/ representation(s) from the aggrieved employees and upon consideration of the multifarious issues and taking a holistic view, the said Committee shall resolve the same by passing speaking orders. The Committee shall decide the controversy, as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Wherever the Committee finds that a retiree is entitled to the grant of Selection- Grade, Proficiency Step-up, ACP etc. and/or other service benefits withdrawn under the impugned orders, the same shall be restored from the due date and consequential benefits along with revised retiral benefits shall be granted to such retiree within a period of four Civil Writ Petition No.18684 of 2006 3 months thereafter. (21). It is made clear that the petitioners shall continue to draw their retiral benefits as per the refixed pay till the Officers’ Committee takes fresh decisions. However, as directed earlier, no recovery shall be effected from any of the petitioners. The amount, if already recovered, shall be refunded to the petitioner concerned within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Likewise, in the case of those retirees to whom the retiral benefits have not been released so far, the respondents are directed to release the same at the earliest at the re-fixed rates but without prejudice to their claims to be adjudicated by the Officers’ Committee. (22). It may also be clarified here that several contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner(s) have not been delved upon nor decided as each case has its own distinct facts, which shall be gone into by the Officers’ Committee constituted under the directions of this Court. The petitioner(s) shall accordingly be at liberty to raise their respective pleas before the Officers’ Committee who shall consider the same in accordance with law. (23). Let a copy of this order under the signatures of the Bench Secretary be handed over to the learned State counsel for information and necessary compliance. (24). Ordered accordingly.” 5 In view of the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of in terms of decision rendered in Smt.Sudarshana Devi's case (supra), relevant Civil Writ Petition No.18684 of 2006 4 portion whereof has been extracted above. May 25, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?