CWP-6414-2003 (O&M) CWP-8489-2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CWP-6414-2003 (O&M) GURBAX SINGH ......Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. .....Respondents (2) CWP-8489-2003 (O&M) MAJOR B.D. GUPTA, RETD. CHIEF ENGINEER ......Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. .....Respondents Reserved on: 31.08.2026 Pronounced on: 03.09.2026 Uploaded on: 07.09.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate with Mr. Samuel Gill, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in both cases. Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (Oral) 1. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is same, therefore, both the writ petitions are decided vide this common judgment. 2. In CWP-6414-2003, the challenge is to orders dated 20.02.2003 and 21.04.2003, whereby, the recovery from pension of the petitioner is SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-6414-2003 (O&M) CWP-8489-2003 (O&M) -2- ordered and further refixation of his pay by recasting of seniority list and changing the date of promotion of the petitioner as Superintending Engineer after about twelve years after the retirement of the petitioner on 29.02.2000 has been effected. 3. In CWP-8489-2003, the challenge is to orders dated 24.02.2003 and 21.04.2003, whereby, recoveries were ordered to be made from the pension of the petitioner after his retirement on the basis of alleged re- fixation of pay due to change of seniority position on the basis of recasting of seniority list after about 12 years of retirement of the petitioner on 31.03.2001 has been effected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that this Court vide order dated 29.04.2003 (in CWP-6414-2003) and vide order dated 03.07.2003 (in CWP-8489-2003) stayed the impugned orders of recovery and as on date the petitioners are about 85/86 years old. He further contends that recovery order was passed after about 12 years of their retirement. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petitions be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the recovery was rightly effected and the petitioners gave an undertaking which is attached with the written statement as Annexure R-3 (in CWP-6414-2003) and undertaking dated 19.05.2000 given by Major B.D. Gupta, wherein, the petitioners themselves undertook that after their retirement or in the case of their death, they or their legal heirs will refund the amount paid to them erroneously or in excess. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petitions be dismissed. SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-6414-2003 (O&M) CWP-8489-2003 (O&M) -3- 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance. 7. It would be apposite here to reproduce the relevant portion of written statement filed by Kuldip Singh, Chief Engineer (IP), Punjab PWD B&R Branch, Patiala on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed in CWP-6414- 2003:- “ PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS X X X 2. That the petitioner did not file any objection against the seniority list circulated vide Annexure P-2 meaning thereby that he accepted his seniority position as assigned therein leading to refixation of his pay from the date he actually started working as Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 12.9.86 in supersession of his earlier conditional orders of his promotion w.e.f. 1.4.85 resulting in effecting recovery in pursuant to speaking orders Annexure P-4. 3. That the concluding lines of para 3 of Annexure P-5 stating that the Government gave this benefits to the petitioner on its own, is absolutely wrong and misleading. In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that consequent upon the conditional promotion of the petitioner w.e.f. 25.6.91, the petitioner requested for fixation of pay vide letter No. 550 dated 10.7.91 (Annexure/R-1) leading to fixation of pay from the date of above orders dated 25.06.1991. ON MERITS X X X 5. That para No. 5 in relation to antedated promotion of the petitioner from 01.04.1985 vide orders issued on 25.06.1991 is admitted being a matter of record. It is SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-6414-2003 (O&M) CWP-8489-2003 (O&M) -4- however, submitted that the orders of promotion issued on 25.06.1991 were conditional subject to result of the pending court cases, which finally culminated in passing of the judgement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.12.1997 against them leading to passing of orders Annexure/P-2, Annexure/P-4 and Annexure/P-6. The petitioner has no claim to agitate when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already decided the case against him vide judgement dated 11.12.1997. The averments made in para 2 supra are also reiterated.” 8. It would be apposite here to reproduce the relevant portion of written statement filed by Kuldip Singh, Chief Engineer (IP), Punjab PWD B&R Branch, Chandigarh on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed in CWP- 8489-2003:- “ PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: That this Hon'ble High Court is already seized of the matter through Civil Writ Petition No. 10246 of 2001 in which it has been categorically submitted in preliminary objection No. 1 that the Petitioner, being Ex-Army Officer, was provisionally promoted as Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 01.04.1985 alongwith others vide Pb. govt. order bearing Endst. No. 05/03/91 BRI (2)/3434-38 dated 25.06.91 with a stipulation that these promotions are subject to the result of the pending LPA's (No. 424 of 1986) in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Accordingly, the pay of the Petitioner was regulated in accordance with the rules. However, finally the inter-se-seniority of Superintending Engineers belonging to civilians and Ex- Army Officers category was settled after taking into account the issues raised by the concerned officers at the time of personal hearing as well as in pursuant to the law laid down by the Courts in the matter vide orders issued SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-6414-2003 (O&M) CWP-8489-2003 (O&M) -5- bearing Endst. No. 16/25/99-BRI(I)/3736 dated 18.07.2000. Consequent upon the settlement of seniority vide Orders dated 18.07.2000, Er. D. P. Bajaj, (Seniority No. 23) vide his letter No. PHSC/EEW/2001/6757-58 dated 05.02.2001 Er. Sarabjit Singh (Seniority No. 22) vide his letter No. 23/PA/CE(IR) dated 30.01.2001 sought stepping up of their pay to the level of their junior i.e., the Petitioner. Moreover, the name of the Petitioner has been placed at Sr. No. 29 below Sarvshri Sampuran Singh (Sen. No. 24), Er. M. L. Malhotra, (Sen. No. 25), Er. D. S. Seth (Sen. No. 26), Er. Gurbax Singh (Can. No. 27), Er. B. S. Bajwa (Sen. No. 28), Er. Sampuran Singh was promoted as Superintending Engineer vide orders dated 26.09.1989 & accordingly the date of promotion of the Petitioner would also have to be changed from the existing 01.04.1985 to 26.09.1989, which would result in refixation of pay of the petitioner and resultantly recoveries. The opinion of the Legal Remembrancer was sought and the said authority has given its opinion that the recovery can be effected. Accordingly, in order to effect the recovery of excess pay as drawn by the Petitioner for the period 01.04.1985 to 26.09.1989 and consequential benefits accrued on this account, Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity and leave encashment payable to the Petitioner were withheld to safeguard the interest of the State Govt. and to avoid any further litigation after the retirement of the petitioner on 31.03.2001. As a sequel to these facts the amount of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and Leave-Encashment sanctioned and drawn from the treasury by way of cheques, were refunded into the treasury vide memo. No. 1574/Cash dated 24.05.2001. Even otherwise, the seniors to the Petitioner namely, Sh. D. P. Bajaj (Sen. No. 23) and Sh. Sarbjit Singh (Sen. No. 22), Retired Chief Engineers also made request for stepping up of their pay to the level of their junior (the Petitioner). SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-6414-2003 (O&M) CWP-8489-2003 (O&M) -6- Since on account of the Petitioner's promotion w.e.f. 01.04.1985 resulted in higher fixation of pay as compared to them who were promoted later on w.e.f. 26.09.1989 and as such, in case their request is acceded to then the other similarly situated persons senior to the Petitioner would also put forth their claims, which in turn would result in payment of hefty arrears. Keeping in view the financial health of the State, it is not possible to pay hefty arrears to all the seniors to the Petitioner. Resultantly, the date of promotion of the Petitioner would have to be changed form existing 01.04.1985 to 26.09.1989, the latter date being the Petitioner would have actually been promoted as Superintending Engineer on the basis of inter-se-seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineer and it would necessitate recovery from the Petitioner, which is proposed to be made good out of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and Leave Encashment due to the Petitioner on his retirement, which was withheld to safeguard the interest of the State Govt., but in view of the interim orders of this Hon'ble High Court dated 03.07.2003, the Petitioner has been sanctioned leave encashment and his DCRD would be released on its verification by the office of Respondent No.2. On account of the facts stated above, the present Writ Petition suffers from the rule of "res-judicata" and therefore, the Writ Petition deserves dismissal on this short ground alone. ON MERITS X X X 6. That para No. 6 of the writ petition is admitted being a matter of record, but while scrutinizing the record, the office did not take into account the fact that the seniors to the Petitioner were promoted on their turn on 26.09.1959 and as such the Petitioner being junior cannot be granted SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-6414-2003 (O&M) CWP-8489-2003 (O&M) -7- promotion as Superintending Engineer prior to his seniors, which would cause legal complications on account of the fact that the senior would put forth their claims for promotion from retrospective as well as bringing their pay at par to the level of their junior i.e. the Petitioner. For these reasons the contents of rest of the para are denied and resultantly, contents of Preliminary Objection supra are reiterated. X X X 15. X X X (A) That Sub para (A) of para No. 15 of the writ petition is absolutely wrong and is denied. In this connection it is submitted that the recoveries are being effected on the basis of express consent given by the Petitioner vide undertaking dated 19.05.2000 and by virtue of the orders Annexure/P-9 & P-11 having come into effect, the recoveries are being effected. The provisions of rules relied upon by the Petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. X X X” 9. It would be apposite here to reproduce the undertaking of Gurbax Singh under Rule 9.15 (I) of Punjab CSR Vol. II in terms of Punjab Govt. Finance Department Notification issued vide No.32/6-1FPIII/94/3292 dated 03.05.1994 filed in CWP-6414-2003 as Annexure R-3:- “Undertaking under rule 9.15 (1) of Punjab CSR Vol. II in terms of Punjab Govt. finance Department Notification issued vide No. 32/6-1FPIII/94/3292 dated 03.05.1994. I, Sh. Gurbax Singh hereby undertake that after my retirement I or in the case of my death, my heirs will refund the amount of pension, adhoc increase/ temporary increase/ adhoc relief or any other kind of SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-6414-2003 (O&M) CWP-8489-2003 (O&M) -8- increase in Pension/ or any other benefits if any, paid to me erroneously or in excess of that due to me.” 10. A perusal of the above shows that admittedly the petitioners were wrongly paid the amount and the relief granted to them was subject to the result of pending Court cases. Therefore, the refixation is rightly done. Since stay was granted vide order dated 29.04.2003 (in CWP-6414-2003) and vide order dated 03.07.2003 (in CWP-8489-2003) and the respondents have not made any effort to get the stay vacated, therefore, now at the fag end of their life when the petitioners are of about 85/86 years old, it would not be in the interest of justice to recover the amount. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondents are directed not to recover any amount from the petitioner. So far as the refixation is concerned, in view of the stand taken by the respondents in the written statement, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petitions. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are partly allowed to the extent of recovery. 13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 03.09.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Sahil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.