IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 11302 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 SAT PAL SINGLA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 21.2.2007, 13.3.2007 and 23.8.2007, Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-5, respectively. Further prayer made is that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to effect any recovery from the salary of the petitioner. A perusal of the order (Annexure P-2) indicates that Civil Writ Petition No. 11302 of 2008 2 proficiency step-up was granted to the petitioner on completion of 24 years of service. In view of the clarification issued by the respondents, the order had been cancelled. Order (Annexure P-3) indicates that in compliance with order (Annexure P-2), the salary of the petitioner has been refixed. Under order (Annexure P-5), the pay of the petitioner has been directed to be reduced, indicating recovery from the salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, contends that challenge is not to refixation itself. The prayer is confined only in challenge to recovery being effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proficiency step-up was not granted on account of any fraud played by the petitioner or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others) decided on 22.5.2009. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to draw the attention of the Court towards any material or evidence to indicate that the petitioner had played any fraud or had misrepresented the facts, so as to actuate erroneous fixation of pay. Considering the facts and circumstances noticed above, in my considered opinion, the matter is covered by the judgment in Budh Ram's case (supra). Accordingly,the petition is allowed to the limited extent that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No. 11302 of 2008 3 of the amount already released in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, it is further held that any amount recovered in the interregnum period shall be refunded to the petitioner within 4 months of receipt of certified copy of this order. September 14, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?