IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.16703 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 4, 2010 RANJIT KAUR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 17.2.2009 (Annexure P-2), order dated 26.5.2009 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 14.7.2009 (Annexure P-4). The effect of the impugned orders is that proficiency step-up given to the petitioner has been withdrawn and recovery has been ordered. The petitioner also claims removal of anomaly in pay fixation. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that in relation to the same department i.e. Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, this Court while dealing with CWP No.18754 of 2007 (Amarjit Singh v. Civil Writ Petition No.16703 of 2009 2 State of Punjab and others) decided on 31.3.2010, has relegated the petitioner to a departmental Committee. This matter can also be relegated to the said Committee for taking a decision, in the context of the case of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he would have no objection if the claim of the petitioner raised in this petition is considered by the departmental Committee. 4. I have considered the issued. 5. From Amarjit Singh's case (supra), the following needs to be extracted:- “So far as challenge to the recovery is concerned, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy is squarely answered in favour of the petitioners by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram v State of Haryana & Ors. 2009[3] PLR, 511. Consequently, the recovery orders are hereby quashed. Recovery, if any, effected from the petitioners, shall be refunded preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Adverting to the contention that the petitioners were rightly granted the benefit of proficiency step-up or their seniority was accordingly fixed, in my considered view, their respective claims can not be decided in isolation without hearing the other effected persons and/or ascertaining the correct facts from the record. Such an exercise can be effectively undertaken by a Departmental Committee as well. Accordingly, it is directed that let there be a Department Committee to be headed by an officer not below the rank of the Special/Additional or Joint Secretary of the Health Department along with two other officers, one of whom shall Civil Writ Petition No.16703 of 2009 3 be from the Directorate of Health Services, Punjab, who shall consider the respective claims of the petitioners and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Suffice it to say that in case the Committee accepts the petitioners' claim, the benefits earlier granted to them shall be restored and consequential arrears and/or revised retiral benefits shall be paid. However, till the Committee takes an appropriate decision, the retiral benefits shall be released, if already not released, as per the revised pay but without prejudice to the petitioners' claim to be decided by the Committee. Disposed of. Dasti.” 6. The petitioner is relegated to the Committee, as constituted under orders passed by this Court in Amarjit Singh's case (supra). The decision be taken within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly. August 4, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?