IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 8699 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 31st March, 2010. Dr. Virinder Singh Petitioner through Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] In this Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 9.11.2006 [Annexure P-3] whereby his pay has been re-fixed by withdrawing the benefit of one earlier increment granted to him on account of bunching as also the order dated 30.4.2007 [Annexure P- 5] vide which recovery is sought to be made. The petitioner claims that the said service benefits have been wrongly withdrawn. 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 one increment[s], in my considered view, the claim can not be decided without ascertaining of 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 Departmental Committee to be heard by the Special/ Additional or Joint Secretary of the Medical Education and Research Department, Punjab, who shall consider the claim of the petitioner 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 petitioner's claim, the benefit earlier granted to him 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 re-fixed pay but without prejudice to the petitioner's claim to be decided by the Committee. Disposed of. Dasti. March 31, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE