CWP-26597 IN TH 211 Ramesh Kum Punjab State CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. Constitution for quashing respondents Bound Scale 12.10.1998 t writ in the na encashment a annum from Further, for d 1 597-2017 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date o h Kumar Gupta VERSUS State Power Corporation Limited and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for Ms. Deepali Puri with Mr. Arjun respondent No.1. Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate for r REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present petition has been fil tution of India praying for issuance of ashing the order dated 14.11.2017 dents have illegally changed the date Scale Benefit and from 12.10.19 998 to 15.01.2009, respectively. Fur the nature of mandamus directing the ment and gratuity of the petitioner a from the date the same fell due to r, for directing respondent No.2 to re NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-26597-2017 Date of Decision: February 18, 2026 ....Petitioner SUS ed and others ...Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR te for the petitioner. . Arjun Dhaliwal, Advocate for te for respondents No.2 to 4. een filed under Article 226/227 of the ce of a writ in the nature of certiorari 2017 (Annexure P-12) whereby the e dates of grant of 1st and 2nd Time .10.1991 to 15.01.2002 and from ly. Further praying for issuance of a ng the respondents to release the leave oner along with interest @ 18% per due to the date of actual payment. to release the Advance Promotional 2026 itioner ondents of the rari y the Time from e of a leave % per ment. tional PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26597 Increment on arrears of ad annum. 2. petitioner re retirement, n him. Vide or illegally and Bound Scale to 15.01.200 which is imp Supreme Co Washer), 201 Bound Scale be recovered and others vs the pendency service unde 09.08.2023. 3. Bound Scales by counting a the date of re 2 597-2017 ent on completion of 23 years of serv of advance increment and pension a Learned counsel for the petition er retired from service on 30.06.2 ent, no disciplinary or criminal proc ide order dated 14.11.2017 (Annexu y and arbitrarily changed the dates Scale Benefits from 12.10.1991 to 15 1.2009, respectively and, conseque is impermissible and contrary to the e Court in State of Punjab and o , 2015 (1) SCT 195. It is further con Scale has been granted, any excess pa overed from a retiree, as held in CW rs vs. State of Haryana and others dency of the present petition, the ben under the Time Bound Scale was g 023. He further submits that the dat Scales were changed on the ground t nting ad hoc service, whereas the revi e of regularization. However, the peti f service w.e.f. 15.01.2016 and grant sion along with interest @ 18% per etitioner, inter alia, contends that the 0.06.2017 and, on the eve of his proceedings were pending against nnexure P-12), the respondents have dates of grant of 1st and 2nd Time 1 to 15.01.2002 and from 12.10.1998 nsequent thereto, ordered recovery to the law laid down by the Hon’ble d others vs. Rafiq Masih (White er contended that once the ACP/Time cess payment made thereunder cannot CWP-2799-2008 titled Budh Ram ers, decided on 16.08.2010. During he benefit on completion of 23 years’ was granted vide office order dated he dates of implementation of Time ound that the earlier dates were fixed e revised dates have been fixed from e petitioner cannot be held liable for grant % per at the f his gainst have Time .1998 overy, on’ble hite /Time annot Ram uring years’ dated Time fixed from le for PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26597 the same in Moreover, t Bound Scale 4. petitioner ha 04.01.2022 a recovery was has been pla High Court 14 SCC 267 2024 titled 20.03.2025. 5. case file with of the petitio was pending encashment entail him to this Court in Punjab, 199 pensionary a constitute a superannuatio 3 597-2017 me in the absence of any misrepres , the petitioner is also entitled to Scale benefit which fell due w.e.f. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for t er had furnished three affidavits/u 022 and 24.03.2023 to the effect th ry was made on account of excess pa en placed upon the judgment of th urt of Punjab and Haryana and o 267, as well as the judgment rendere titled Roop Chand vs. State of Pu 025. I have heard learned counsel f le with their able assistance. It transpir petitioner, no charge-sheet, disciplina ending against him. As such, with ment is not justified. Any delay in im to interest in terms of the judgme urt in A.S. Randhawa, Superintendin , 1998 (1) SCT 343, wherein it has nary and retiral benefits are not in ute a vested and enforceable right a nnuation. It has been clarified that any srepresentation or fault on his part. ed to interest on the 23 years’ Time .f. 15.01.2016. el for the respondents submits that the vits/undertakings dated 21.06.2017, fect that he had no objection if any ess payment. In this regard, reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in nd others vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) rendered by this Court in CWP-8506 f Punjab and others, decided on nsel for the parties and perused the anspires that, on the eve of retirement ciplinary proceeding or criminal case , withholding of gratuity or leave lay in release of retiral dues would udgment passed by the Full Bench of nding Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of it has been unequivocally held tha not in the nature of a bounty but right accruing to an employee upon at any culpable delay in the release of part. Time at the .2017, if any liance urt in 2016) 8506- ed on ed the ement l case leave would ch of te of d that y but upon ase of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26597 such dues be would entail retiree by wa 6. Bound Scales petitioner. A Singh’s case facts and, the 7. petitioner we was constrain benefits at th termed volun covered by th Ranjit Singh relevant porti 4 597-2017 ues beyond a reasonable period, qua entail a corresponding liability upon t by way of interest on the belated paym There is no denial of the fact th Scales were initially granted, no und er. As such, the reliance placed by case (supra) and Roop Chand’s cas nd, therefore, misplaced. Further, it appears that the er were obtained under compelling c nstrained to furnish the same in order s at the time of retirement. Such und voluntary. On this count, the case d by the judgment rendered by this Co ingh vs. State of Punjab and other t portion thereof reads as under:- “17. Unfortunately, th undertakings from employees w tedious litigation is rather com exploitative as they often per benefits including arrears of sa service and retiral benefits an employees under duress. Often issued fresh appointment letters hand, to deny them any benefi d, quantified therein as two months, upon the employer to compensate the payments. fact that, at the time when the Time o undertaking was obtained from the ed by the respondents upon Jagdev s case (supra) is distinguishable on undertakings furnished by the lling circumstances, as the petitioner order to secure release of his retiral ch undertakings, therefore, cannot be e case of the petitioner is squarely his Court in CWP-28761-2025, titled others, decided on 25.09.2025. The the practice of extracting es who have been reinstated after common. These undertakings are pertain to forgoing past service of salary, increments, continuity of s and are obtained by placing the ften the reinstated employees are tters, as is the case in the matter at enefits of their past service, which onths, te the Time m the gdev ble on y the tioner retiral ot be uarely , titled . The ting after are vice y of the are r at hich PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26597 8. payment mad the Hon’ble S speaking thro “12. would have m entitlem herein few si imperm 5 597-2017 directly impacts their regulariz benefits. Considering that li employees often remain silent i practices. This Court cannot advantage of their employees’ f them to their will. As such, answered in the following terms ‘Such exploitative undert no employee can be fo statutory rights.” Further still, the question reg nt made to a retired employee is well s n’ble Supreme Court of India in Rafi g through Justice Jagdish Singh Kheh 2. ….It is not possible to postulate a uld govern employees on the issue ve mistakenly been made by the titlement. Be that as it may, based rein above, we may, as a ready refe w situations, wherein recoveries permissible in law: (i) Recovery from employee Class-IV service (or Group 'C' a (ii) Recovery from retired em due to retire within one year, of (iii) Recovery from employees been made for a period in exces of recovery is issued. larization, seniority and pensionary t livelihoods are at stake, the ent in the face of these exploitative nnot allow an employer to take es’ financial circumstances to bend ch, the question framed above is rms:- ndertakings are void ab initio since e forced to contract out of his on regarding recovering of excess well settled by a two-Judge Bench of Rafiq Masih’s case (supra). Which Khehar, opined as under: ate all situations of hardship, which issue of recovery, where payments the employer, in excess of their based on the decisions referred to reference, summarise the following ries by the employers, would be oyees belonging to Class-III and 'C' and Group 'D' service). d employees, or employees who are r, of the order of recovery. yees, when the excess payment has xcess of five years, before the order nary the tive take end e is ince his excess nch of hich hich ents their d to ing be and are has rder PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26597 9. 722, a two- Justice S. Ab paid to an em misrepresenta paragraph of “9. Th the e misrep payme for ca interpr errone not re becaus discret will be that if that th paid, o time o discret particu 6 597-2017 (iv) Recovery in cases where been required to discharge du been paid accordingly, even th been required to work against a (v) In any other case, whe conclusion, that recovery if mad iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary outweigh the equitable balanc recover. In Thomas Daniel v. State of Ke -Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Sup S. Abdul Nazeer, observed that no an employee can be effected when the resentation on the part of the em aph of the said judgment is reproduced This Court in a catena of decision e excess amount was not isrepresentation or fraud of the yment was made by the employer r calculating the pay/allowance or terpretation of rule/order which roneous, such excess payment of e t recoverable. This relief against cause of any right of the employees b scretion to provide relief to the em ll be caused if the recovery is order at if in a given case, it is proved th at the payment received was in exce id, or in cases where error is detec e of wrong payment, the matter scretion, the courts may on the fa rticular case order for recovery of a here an employee has wrongfully e duties of a higher post, and has n though he should have rightfully st an inferior post. where the Court arrives at the made from the employee, would be rary to such an extent, as would far lance of the employer's right to of Kerala and others, 2022 (2) SCT le Supreme Court, speaking through at no recovery of the excess amount the same is not attributable to any the employee concerned. Relevant duced as under:- cisions has consistently held that if ot paid on account of any the employee or if such excess yer by applying a wrong principle ce or on the basis of a particular ich is subsequently found to be of emoluments or allowances are ainst the recovery is granted not ees but in equity, exercising judicial employees from the hardship that rdered. This Court has further held d that an employee had knowledge excess of what was due or wrongly etected or corrected within a short tter being in the realm of judicial e facts and circumstances of any of amount paid in excess.” fully as fully the d be far t to SCT rough mount to any levant at if any cess ciple ular be are not icial that held edge ngly hort icial any PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26597 10. arbitrary or benefits like administratio effect of su reflects on th Therefore, e demands tha consultation, retired emplo 11. the petitioner Time Bound 12. petition is dis i) The pet inte mo ii) If adj 7 597-2017 In that vein, this Court is of ry or uncommunicated recoveries by s like gratuity and leave encashment, stration and demonstrate a lack of hum of such abrupt recovery extends b on the sensitivity, fairness, and acco ore, even where legal remedies e ds that any recovery from pension tation, and empathetic handling cons employee. However as per instructions pro itioner, the petitioner shall remain sati ound Scales reckoned from the date o In view of the above facts a is disposed of with the following dire The respondents shall release all petitioner, including gratuity and interest @ 6% per annum, to be months from the date of retirement If any amount has already been adjusted. (Emphasis supplied) is of the considered opinion that by means of withholding retiral ment, contradict the spirit of a welfare of humane consideration. Overall, the nds beyond administrative error; it d accountability of governance itself. dies exist, administrative prudence ension be preceded by due notice, g consistent with the dignity of the ns provided to the learned counsel for in satisfied with the changed dates of te of regularization. acts and circumstances, the present ng directions:- se all admissible retiral dues of the y and leave encashment, along with to be calculated after expiry of two ement till its actual realization. been paid, the same shall be duly plied) that retiral elfare ll, the ror; it itself. dence otice, of the sel for tes of resent of the with f two duly PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26597 iii) An uns are ann iv) The aris cal 13. Pen disposed of. February 1 P.C 8 597-2017 Any recovery made beyond a p unsustainable in view of Rafiq M are directed to refund such recover annum from the date of recovery til The petitioner shall also be entitle arising out of the 23 years’ Ti calculable from the date of his regu Pending miscellaneous applicatio ed of. ary 18, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : d a period of five years shall be iq Masih (supra). The respondents ecovery along with interest @ 6% per very till its actual realization. entitled to all consequential benefits s’ Time Bound Promotional Scale is regularization. lication(s), if any, shall also stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No all be dents % per nefits Scale stand RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document