RAJPAL SINGH v. HARYANA POWER GENERATION

Present: Mr.Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Parveen Gupta, Advocate, for Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN ...RESPONDENTS

2. 3. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes K.KANNAN, J.

1. The batch of three petitions address the same issue relating to the tenability of claim for refund of money purperted to have been paid in excess to the petitioners respectively during the time of their employment CWP No.432 of 2008 -2- with the respective corporations. All the petitioners have been superannuated and they cannot question the decision of the corporation in treating them, post-retirement, as persons falling in Group-‘D’ and that the ACP scale of pay that they were granted was wrongly applied to them.

2. By the office order No.384 dated 19.8.1987, the Haryana State Electricity Board decided to revise the pay scales of various categories of employees w.e.f 1.1.1986. Oilers-cum-Cleaners had been shown in the scale of pay Rs.350-600/- and as per order dated 19.8.1987, the scales had been increased to Rs.775-1025/- and for Helper-I also the scales were maintained, as Rs.350-600/- which had been revised as 775-1025/-. Technician Grade-II had been shown in the scale of pay of Rs.400-700/- with increase as Rs.950-1500/-.

3. The contention of the petitioners was that they were working in the office of respondent Nos.3 and 4 at thermal power station. They were working in the capacity of Work Inspector in the scale of pay of Rs.775- 1025/-, which was equivalent to a post as Helper-I, which was under Group-‘C’. In terms of policy/notification of the Electricity Board, they had been promoted/re-designated as Technician Grade-II w.e.f 14.10.1988 in the pay scale of Rs.1020-2040 and continued working at the same post till the respective dates of retirements. They have also been granted an additional increment under the Scheme of Higher Standard Scales after completion of 8/18 years of service to Group-‘C’ employees as on 1.7.1992. The additional increments had been given to the petitioners along side the enhanced salary granted to Group-‘C’ employees. They were also granted revised pay scales as per office order No.705/FIN dated 24.2.1998 when they were placed in the scale of Rs.4000-6000, w.e.f 1.1.1996 and also granted the ACP scales of Rs.4625-7250/- by office order No.706/FIN dated

27.2.1998.

4. The cause for the complaint of the petitioners was, by the CWP No.432 of 2008 -3- impugned notices, amounts ranging to tune of Rs.92782/- for the petitioner in CWP No.432 of 2008 and similar amounts for the other petitioners had been demanded to be refunded on the ground that they have been wrongly offered the ACP scales on reckoning that they were entitled to Group-‘C’ position when they ought to have been treated as persons in Group-‘D’, corresponding to the scales that they drew in a pay scale of Rs.350-600, applicable to Oiler-cum-Cleaner. The petitioners challenge the same not only because there is a demand for refund, but also it impacts retirement benefits payable to the petitioners. The petitioners relied on the office order No.3915 dated 6.10.1988 to contend that when promotions, transfers and postings were ordered, a person officiating as Helper Grade-I had again been posted in the scale against post of Technician Grade-II in HSEB Thermal Station as officiating Technician Grade-II, meaning thereby, that Helper Grade-I could work against Technician Grade-II as such and mere difference in pay at the time, could not made them fall into in any different group. The attempt of the petitioners was to show that petitions could not be treated as belonging to Group-‘D’ by the only fact that they drew scale of pay in the range of Rs.350-600 applicable to Oilers-cum-Cleaners, which was a Group-‘D’ post, failing to note that Helper-I was also in the same scale but while the office order was issued in 1988, they were made to officiate as Technician Grade-II, which post carried a higher scale of pay.

5. In this case a demand for refund and the stand of the Electricity Board that they had been granted wrong ACP scales, is only on a characterization that the petitioners were all in Group-‘D’ posts. What should have been noticed was that, that there was no order or circular to clarify whether posts fell in Class-III or Clas-IV during the time when they were in employment. It could be noticed even in the letter of the Chief Engineer, Urbanization to the Chief Engineer, O&M, it was specifically recited that ASEP/HSEB had no circular/instructions that post of Oiler-cum- CWP No.432 of 2008 -4- Cleaner appearing in this serial No.38 of Group-II fell under the category of Group-‘D’ as pay scale of the post of Oiler-cum-Cleaner was Rs.350-600/- and what it was to be, when the staff pattern underwent a change with the re-designation of the post of Oiler-cum-Cleaner as Helper Grade-I w.e.f

15.1.1986.

6. Pointing out to contention of the respondents that by virtue of the scale of pay for a Work Inspector was Rs.350-600/-, that the issue whether it fell within Group-‘C’ or Group-‘D’, was a disputed question of fact, and that further were no order mentioning the said category as falling either under Group-‘C’ or Group-‘D’, the petitioners would contend that respondent could not have forced the issue by a unilateral decision to withdraw the benefit, which had been given to the petitioners during their period of service. If the functional scale of Helper Grade-I and Technician Grade-II were the same, as found in the office order No.705/Finance dated

24.2.1978, the obvious inference ought to be that the post of Helper Grade-I and Technician Grade-II fell under the same category which was category-‘C’ not category-‘D’. It should be noticed that services of Peon, Daftri, Jamadar all fell under Group-‘D’, whose pay scale at that time was Rs.300-500, whereas, the post of Helper Grade-I and Technician Grade-II, although had the same functional scale could not be equated to Peon or Daftri or Jamadar.

7. It shall also be borne in mind that the higher scales offered to persons were not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation and therefore, the question of claiming refund was unjustified. Even re-working the scales of pay after they had been superannuated, would be unjust and impermissible. During all the time when they were in service, the Corporation did not issue any notice withdrawing the benefit granted to them and the attempt to do so after 15-20 years after rendering service, would be grossly injustice. The impugned notice demanding the refund of CWP No.432 of 2008 -5- amounts and the orders rejecting the claims made by the petitioners, are hereby quashed and the petitions are allowed. There shall however be no direction as to costs. February 10, 2010 Vt (K.KANNAN) JUDGE