CWP-27859-2017 IN T 230 Sampuran Singh State of Punjab an CORAM: HON ***** Present : Mr. Mr. C ***** AMAN CHAUDH 1. Praye 31.10.2017 and 24 reduced from Rs.3 2. The 21.01.1979 and recommendations dated 04.1.1990 Inspection Cadre) seniority No.551 Thereafter, he on a after about a deca on premise of dec Mohal vs. State promotion as Prin petition as a ma adjudication. Be th it has been filed a besides the State 2017 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date ingh Versus and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN C ***** Mr. RK Arora, Advocate for the petit Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab ***** AUDHARY, J. (ORAL) yer made in the present petition and 24.11.2017 whereby last pay dra m Rs.31,430/- to Rs.26,800/-. The petitioner was appointed as Ma and thereafter directly appointed ations of the Punjab Public Service Co 1990 and promoted as Principal in Cadre) vide order dated 20.03.2001 o.551-A on notional basis in the pay he on attaining the age of superannuati a decade that the petitioner received th of decision rendered in CWP-2535 State of Punjab and others, by stat rincipal has been changed to 18.10 a matter of fact has not even be e that as it may, petitioner is neith filed against two other persons Dhar State of Punjab, as is apparent from 1 UNJAB & HARYANA ARH CWP-27859-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.01.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents AN CHAUDHARY e petitioner. Punjab. tition for quashing the letters dated ay drawn of the petitioner has been as Master in Physical Education on ointed as Head Master on the ice Commission, Patiala, vide order pal in the PES Class (School & .2001 w.e.f. 13.12.1996 as per his he pay scale of Rs.10025-15100/-. nnuation retired on 31.01.2008. It is ived the impugned letter that is also 2535-2008 titled as Rajinder Singh y stating therein that his date of 18.10.2005. However, the said writ en been decided and is pending s neither party respondent therein as Dharampal and Mohan Lal Khosla, nt from Annexure P6. Reliance is ated een n on the rder l & his . It is also ingh e of writ ding n as , e is ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.21 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27859-2017 further placed on which Head of o preceding 24 mon for any period pr Court in the case 2015, decided on 0 2017 (O&M) ed on Rule 9.4 B(iii) of the Punjab d of office may verify the correctn 4 months the date of retirement of a g iod prior to that date. Based on the case Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Pu ed on 02.05.2017 (Annexure P9), held “After going through the (Annexure P1) and Rule 9.4 Services Rules, Volume-II, I petitioner is placed in the high step ups were to be postponed the number of increments alre minimum of the scales of the in the scale. However, what th done is that they had just calc the petitioner from the initial s appointed as Clerk on 03.07.1 of service on 03.07.1993 a implication of Rule 7 of the Go 1), the additional increment w Thereafter, applying the said f years of service, further ACP w per Instructions dated 25.09.19 I am of the view that th granted. However, then the q after 14-20 years of the gran can be withdrawn, stating that A perusal of Rule 9.4(b)(iii) r Punjab Civil Services Rules, reckoning pension, the last dra office is to verify only the corr the period of 24 months prece the Govt. Employee and not fo Therefore, the Accountant G checking up the entire service whether from the initial stage, step ups were correctly grante of withdrawing the proficie 03.07.1993 and 03.07.1999 a of the Punjab Civil Services R assumed that the pay was wr authority of Hon'ble the Suprem others etc. v Rafiq Mas 2015(2)SCC (Civil) 608, the from the retiral dues of the peti 2 unjab Civil Services, Vol-II, as per orrectness of emoluments for the of a government employee and not n the aforesaid Rule position, this of Punjab and others, CWP-881- held thus:- the Government Instructions le 9.4(b)(iii) of the Punjab Civil II, I am of the view that if the e higher pay scale, the proficiency poned by a number of years equal to ts already covered by her from the of the time of initial fixation of pay hat the respondents-department had st calculated 18 years of service of nitial stage. Since the petitioner was 3.07.1975, she completed 18 years 993 and without considering the the Govt. Instructions (Annexure P- ent was granted to the petitioner. said formula, on completion of 24 ACP was granted on 03.07.1999 as .09.1998. hat the increments were wrongly the question would arise whether grant of said increments, the same g that these were wrongly granted? )(iii) read with Rule 6.19(c) of the Rules, Volume II shows that for ast drawn pay is to be seen and the e correctness of the emoluments for preceding the date of retirement of not for any period prior to that date. tant General was not justified in ervice record of the petitioner to see stage, the increments of proficiency granted or not. Therefore, the order roficiency step ups granted on 999 are contrary to Rule 9.4(b)(iii) ices Rules, Volume II. Even if, it is as wrongly fixed, in view of the Supreme Court “State of Punjab and Masih (White Washer) etc.”, 8, the recovery cannot be effected he petitioner. per the not this ions ivil the ncy al to pay had e of was ears the ner. f 24 9 as ngly ther ame ted? the for the s for t of ate. in see ncy rder on )(iii) it is the and cted ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.21 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27859-2017 3. Hon’ Pramukh Sachiv of 2008, decided materia to the one 2017 (O&M) In somewhat similar circum “Sushil Kumar Singhal v Department and Ors.”, 2014 refixation of the pay and the under consideration in the sa authority then enquire the e months, whereas under Rule 9 Services Rules, Volume II emoluments for the period of of retirement of the Govt. emp prior to that date, are verified. As a result of the foregoing d is allowed. The impugned (Annexure P-5), order endors P-6) are hereby quashed. C orders dated 11.07.2014 ( 23.06.2014 (Annexure P-8) a amount already recovered, in refunded to the petitioner alo annum from the date of recov within a period of three month certified copy of this order.” Hon’ble the Supreme court in achiv Irrigation Department and o cided on 17.04.2014, while dealing w he ones involved herein also held thus: “7. Upon perusal of the aforest made by the learned counsel ap not in dispute that the app December, 2003 and at the tim was Rs.11,625/- and on the pension had been fixed as R mistake had been committed in been committed in 1986, i.e. m the appellant and therefore, by dated 16th January, 2007, neith to the appellant could have be the appellant could have been r 8. The learned counsel ap employer could not deny any o 9. In the aforestated circumsta correct while permitting the res the pension payable to the app 3 circumstances, the Apex Court in al v Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation 2014 (3) S.C.T. 98, quashed the d the recovery orders. In the Rule the said case, the pension fixation the emoluments only for last 10 Rule 9.4(b)(iii) of the Punjab Civil me II, the correctness of the od of 24 months preceding the date t. employee and not for any period ified. oing discussion, the present petition ugned memo dated 27.12.2013 endorsed on 26.05.2014 (Annexure ed. Consequently, the impugned 14 (Annexure P-9) and dated 8) are also hereby quashed. The ed, in pursuant to these orders be er along with interest @ 9% per f recovery till the date of payment months from the date of receipt of in Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. and others, Civil Appeal No.5262 aling with the Rules that were pari hus:- aforestated G.O. and the submission nsel appearing for the appellant, it is e appellant had retired on 31st the time of his retirement his salary n the basis of the said salary his as Rs.9000/-. Admittedly, if any itted in pay fixation, the mistake had , i.e. much prior to the retirement of , by virtue of the aforestated G.O. , neither any salary paid by mistake ave been recovered nor pension of been reduced. el appearing for the respondent any of the facts stated hereinabove. umstances, the High Court was not the respondent authorities to reduce he appellant by not setting aside the rt in tion the ule tion t 10 ivil the date riod ition 013 xure ned ated The s be per ent t of vs. 262 ri sion it is 31st lary his any had t of .O. take n of dent not uce the ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.21 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27859-2017 4. Learn controvert the fac aforementioned ju 5. In wa the judgment pass 20.01.2025 ashok Whet Whet 2017 (O&M) order whereby excess amount was sought to be recovered. 10. For the aforestated reaso judgment delivered by the respondents not to recover any been paid to the appellant in committed in pay fixation in 1 shall also not be reduced and pension as fixed earlier at the pertinent to note that the Gov policy under its G.O. date therefore, the respondent autho different view in the matter appellant. 11. The submission made on appearing for the respondent getting more amount than wha accepted in view of the policy in G.O. dated 16th January, 2 that mistakes are committed ve the Government to change its dated 16th January, 2007 is employer could not have pass the excess salary paid to th pension of the appellant. 12. For the reasons recorded h aside the impugned judgment 23.03.2005 whereby salary of t order dated 23.04.2005 whereb of Rs.99,522/- was ordered appellant. The appellant shall been determined at the tim immediately after 31st Dece disposed of as allowed with no Learned State counsel despite his be the factual position and draw out an ned judgments or cite any contrary law In wake of the above, the present peti t passed in Sarabjit Kaur (supra). Whether speaking : Whether reportable : 4 ount of salary paid to the appellant reasons, we quash the impugned the High Court and direct the er any amount of salary which had nt in pursuance of some mistake on in 1986. The amount of pension ed and the appellant shall be paid at the time of his retirement. It is e Government had framed such a dated 16th January, 2007 and t authorities could not have taken a atter of re-fixing pension of the e on behalf of the learned counsel ndent that the appellant would be n what he was entitled to cannot be olicy laid down by the Government ary, 2007. If the Government feels tted very often, it would be open to ge its policy but as far as the G.O. 007 is in force, the respondent- e passed any order for recovery of to the appellant or for reducing rded hereinabove, we quash and set gment as well as the order dated ry of the appellant was re-fixed and whereby recovery of excess amount dered to be recovered from the t shall be paid pension which had he time of his retirement, i.e. December, 2003. The appeal is ith no order as to costs.” his best efforts has been unable to out any distinctive aspects in the ary law. nt petition is disposed of in terms of (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No llant ned the had take sion paid It is ch a and en a the nsel be t be ent eels n to .O. y of cing set ated and ount the had i.e. l is le to the of ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.21 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document