CWP No.2893 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2893 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Chanchal Singh . . . . Petitioner 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. S.K. Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner retired from the post of Heavy Equipment Mechanic (HEM) on 31.10.2005. He seeks quashing of the order dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure P3) to the extent of ordering recovery of Rs.11670/- from his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. The recovery is sought to be effected on the plea that earlier the pay scale of Rs.1200-2100 was erroneously granted to the petitioner. (2). During the course of hearing, Mr. B.S. Chahal, learned DAG Punjab fairly states that the writ petition deserves to be allowed in part in terms of CWP No.2893 of 2010.doc - 2 – the decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in CWP No.1067 of 2003 titled as Thein Dam Workers Union (Regd.) Shahpur Kandi vs. State of Punjab and others and other connected matters decided on 27.03.2009, the concluding part whereof, reads as follows:- “In view of the said fact, we partly allow the present writ petitions by declaring that the refixation of salary from the retrospective date i.e., prior to the decision of the Committee, is illegal and void. Since the impugned orders were stayed in few of the writ petitions, the workmen must have been paid higher pay scale. Therefore, in respect of the employees, who are petitioners in the aforesaid cases, the respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate decision in respect of the recovery of the amount so paid to avoid hardship and undue financial burden at this stage, keeping in view the interim orders passed by this Court.” (3). This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above-reproduced terms. (4). Ordered accordingly. (5). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 22.02.2010 vishal shonkar