IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 638 of 2009 Date of Decision: October 7, 2010 Randhir Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms. Preeti Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition under Article 226 has been filed for declaring Rule 11 of the Haryana Civil Service (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 (for brevity, ‘ACP Rules 1998’) and clarification thereto (Annexure P-6) as uncon- stitutional and void with a further prayer to quash impugned orders dated 11.8.2003, 18.9.2008 and 8.12.2008 (Annexures P-3 to P-5) vide which the pay of the petitioner has been re-fixed and recovery has been ordered. The issue raised in the instant petition is no longer res integra. A similar petition titled as Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 14653 of 2008, decided on 5.8.2009) came up for consideration be- fore a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J. was a C.W.P. No. 638 of 2009 member. After noticing Rule 11 of the Haryana Civil Service (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 and various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. KGS Bhatt, (1989) 4 SCC 635; State of Tripura v. K.K. Roy, (2004) 9 SCC 65; Food Corporation of India v. Parashotam Das Bansal, (2008) 5 SCC 100; Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1994 (5) SLR 753; Purshotam Lal v. State of Bihar, 2007(1) RSJ 150, P.H. Reddy v. N.T.R.D., 2002 (2) SCT 987; Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, 1996 (3) RSJ 205 and a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Budh Ram and others v. State of Hary- ana and others (CWP No. 2799 of 2008, decided on 22.5.2009), the Division Bench has upheld the order of re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner in the said case, however, demand for recovery for the pay paid in excess has been held to be unsustainable and those orders have been quashed. Accordingly, the said pe- tition was partly allowed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book we are of the considered view that the instant petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra). Accordingly, for the sake of parity of reasoning, we partly allow the instant petition also in terms of Division Bench judgment in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra). (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) October 7, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2