CWP No. 138 and 804 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP No. 138-2005 (O&M) Baldev Singh and ors. ....Petitioners vs. State of Punjab and ors. ...Respondents 2. CWP No. 804-2005 (O&M) Gurmeet Singh ....Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and ors. ...Respondents Date of Reserve: 18.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 03.09.2026 Uploaded on:- 08.09.2026 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. Virender Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner (s) in both the petitions. Ms. Arundhiti Kulshrestha, AAG, Punjab. * * * SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the writ petition (CWP No. 138-2005) is to orders dated 05.11.2004, 10.11.2004 and 29.11.2004, whereby it was ordered that recovery be effected from the petitioners. Further prayer of the petitioners is to restore their pay as earlier fixed on their promotion at par with their junior Balwinder Singh and to pay consequent arrears along with interest @ 18% per annum. In CWP No. 804-2005, challenge is to order dated 05.11.2004, whereby it was ordered that recovery be effected from the petitioner. Further prayer of the petitioner is to restore his pay as earlier fixed on his promotion at par with his junior Balwinder Singh and to pay consequent GAURAV ARORA 2026.09.08 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 138 and 804 of 2005 2 arrears along with interest @ 18% per annum. 2. Since the issue involved in the above referred to two civil writ petitions is same, therefore, the same are decided, vide this common order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner (s) contends that all the petitioners are above 70 years of age and vide order dated 06.01.2005 (in CWP No. 138-2005) and order dated 14.01.2005 (in CWP No. 804-2005), the recovery was ordered to be stayed. Further the impugned orders are wrongly passed without issuing any show cause notice or opportunity of being heard. He, therefore, prays that the present petitions be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argues on the lines of written statement (s). She, therefore, prays that the present petitions be dismissed. 5. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the written statement. The same is reproduced as under:- “Preliminary Objections 1. That the present Writ petition is not maintainable. The Principle of Seniority cum meritis and merit cum seniority are conce -ptually different. For the former, greeter emphasis is laid in seniority, though it is not the deteminative factor, while in the latter merit is the determinative factor. Their Lordships had held in the case of state and Mysore and others V/S sayed Mohed and others. reported in AIR 1967 S.C. 1113, It was observed by the Lordship that promotion is to be made by selection on the basis of seniority-cum- merits, that the rule required promotion to be made by selection on the basis of seniority subject to the fitness of candidate to discharge GAURAV ARORA 2026.09.08 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 138 and 804 of 2005 3 the duty of the post among the persons eligible for promotion. It was observed that where the promotion is based on seniority.cum merit the Officer cannot claim promotion as a matter of right by virtue of his seniority alone and if he is found unfit to discharge the duty of the higher post he may be passed over and an officer Junior to him may be promoted. As such the case of the petitioner is not maintainable 2. That it will be in the fitness of things to mention here that seniority list of Patwaris is to be fixed by Circle wise. The case of Balwinder Singh is entirely different from that of the Writ Petitioners. Initially Balwinder Singh was patwari at Dholwehe Dam Circle, Hoshiarpur and his seniority was fixed there as per Dholwaha Dam Circle. Not only this Belwinder Singh got selection grade at Dholweha Dam Circle because of his services rendered as Balwinder Singh discharged his duties to the entire satisfaction of the officers. Not only this case of the petitioner in much less than the case of Balwinder Singh as the petitioners were serving in Sirhind Cenal Circle Ludhiana but they could not get the selection grede as such the petitioners cannot be equated with Balwinder Singh. 3. That the concerned D.D.O. due to inadvertence and due to some mistaken belief got fixed the salary of the petitioner as per Balwinder Singh's case but when the true fact came to light the record was corrected and the increased salary has to be withdrawn and the same was withdrawn upon which the present petitioners filed the Writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that the department GAURAV ARORA 2026.09.08 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 138 and 804 of 2005 4 cannot suo moto withdraw the salary without affording an opportunity to the Writ petitioners and to issue a show Cause notice may why the salary should not be cut out/withdrawn and as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court a show casue notices were issued to the Writ Petitioners. Proper and reasonable opportunities of being heard were given and a speaking order was passed which are under challenge.” 6. A perusal of the above referred to written statement shows that admittedly, the petitioners were mistakenly granted more salary than they were entitled to due to mistake on the part of the concerned D.D.O at that point of time. Since the recovery was stayed by this Court vide order dated 06.01.2005 (in CWP No. 138-2005) and order dated 14.01.2005 (in CWP No. 804-2005) and till date, there is nothing on record to show that the respondents made any efforts to get the stay vacated, therefore, at this stage, it would not be in the interest of justice to recover the amount from the petitioners who are already at the fag end of their lives i.e above 70 years. 7. So far as re-fixation of the pay of the petitioners are concerned. For that, appropriate opportunity was granted to them before re-fixation of their pay. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the same. 8. Accordingly, both the petitions are partly allowed to the extent that the respondents cannot effect recovery from the petitioners. 9. Pending application (s) if any, also stand disposed of. 03.09.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Gaurav Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GAURAV ARORA 2026.09.08 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document