IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17592 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 04, 2010. Balbir Kaur .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner, who is presently working as Deputy M.E.I.O, is due for retirement on 31.5.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. She is aggrieved at the order dated 23.4.2009 (Annexure P-1) whereby after re-fixation of her pay retrospectively, recovery is sought to be effected from her. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines her claim qua recovery only and has no objection against the re-fixation of her pay or the proficiency step up. C.W.P.No .17592 of 2009 (O&M) 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The respondents have nowhere averred that the petitioner ever misled the authorities and/or concealed the material facts for monetary gains. The recovery sought to be effected from the petitioner, therefore, is liable to be annulled in the light of the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. While re- fixation of the petitioner's pay or the proficiency step-up is up-held, however, the consequential recovery notice is hereby set-aside. It is further directed that in case the respondents have already effected any recovery from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to her within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 04-02-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE