CWP No.17891 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.17891 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22.04.2010 **** Mrs. Balwinder Kaur . . . . 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. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). In this Civil Writ Petition, the petitioner – widow of a deceased employee, impugns the action of the respondents, whereby, the benefit of ACP/Proficiency Step granted to her husband, has been withdrawn and after reducing/re-fixing her family pension, the consequential recovery is sought to be effected. CWP No.17891 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed their counter- reply/affidavit in which nowhere it is alleged that the petitioner’s husband misled the authorities or played any fraud or deceived them to secure the undeserving monetary benefit(s). (3). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted her challenge qua ‘recovery’ only and submits that the matter may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 02.03.2010 passed in CWP No.697 of 2010 titled as Kaur Chand vs. State of Punjab and others, which was decided in the light of the parameters laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 and the operative part whereof reads as under:- “Following the dictum in Budh Ram’s case (supra), the writ petition is allowed in part; the action of the respondents in ordering recovery of the excess payments received by the petitioner as a result of Stepping-up of his pay or grant of ACP is hereby quashed. However, the impugned order(s) to the extent of re-fixation of his pay and consequential re-determination of the retiral benefits are upheld. The recovery, if any, already made from the petitioner shall be refunded to him within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” CWP No.17891 of 2009.doc - 3 – (4). The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part in the above-reproduced terms. (1). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 22.04.2010 vishal shonkar