IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 18754 of 2007. [O&M] Date of Decision: 31st March, 2010. Amarjit Singh Petitioner through Mr. H.S.Saggu, 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] This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 18754 of 2009, 3444 and 5186 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. In all these cases, the pay of the petitioners has been re- fixed and consequential recovery orders have been passed against them. Aggrieved, they have approached this Court. While in CWP No. 3444 of 2010, the benefit of proficiency step-up has been withdrawn, in CWP Nos. 18754 of 2007 and CWP No. 5186 of 2010, the seniority of the petitioners has been re-fixed to their dis-advantage, as a result thereto, their pay has also been re- fixed, resulting into impugned recovery. 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 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. March 31, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE