CWP-26597 v. Punjab State

Judgment

1. The present petition has been fil of the een filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution tution of India praying for issuance of ce of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing ashing the order dated 14.11.2017 y the 2017 (Annexure P-12) whereby the respondents dents have illegally changed the date e dates of grant of 1st and 2nd Time Time Bound Scale Scale Benefit and from 12.10.19 .10.1991 to 15.01.2002 and from

12.10.1998 t 998 to 15.01.2009, respectively. Fur e of a ly. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the na the nature of mandamus directing the ng the respondents to release the leave encashment a ment and gratuity of the petitioner a % per oner along with interest @ 18% per annum from from the date the same fell due to ment. due to the date of actual payment. Further, for d r, for directing respondent No.2 to re tional to release the Advance Promotional PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26597 597-2017 2 Increment on ent on completion of 23 years of serv f service w.e.f. 15.01.2016 and grant arrears of ad of advance increment and pension a % per sion along with interest @ 18% per annum.

Learned counsel for the petition at the etitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner re er retired from service on 30.06.2 f his 0.06.2017 and, on the eve of his retirement, n ent, no disciplinary or criminal proc gainst proceedings were pending against him. Vide or ide order dated 14.11.2017 (Annexu nnexure P-12), the respondents have illegally and y and arbitrarily changed the dates Time dates of grant of 1st and 2nd Time Bound Scale Scale Benefits from 12.10.1991 to 15 .1998 1 to 15.01.2002 and from 12.10.1998 to 15.01.200

1.2009, respectively and, conseque overy, nsequent thereto, ordered recovery which is imp is impermissible and contrary to the on’ble to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Co e Court in State of Punjab and o d others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 201 , 2015 (1) SCT 195. It is further con /Time er contended that once the ACP/Time Bound Scale Scale has been granted, any excess pa cess payment made thereunder cannot be recovered overed from a retiree, as held in CW Ram CWP-2799-2008 titled Budh Ram and others vs rs vs. State of Haryana and others ers, decided on 16.08.2010. During the pendency dency of the present petition, the ben years’ he benefit on completion of 23 years’ service unde under the Time Bound Scale was g was granted vide office order dated

023. 09.08.2023.

3. He further submits that the dat Time he dates of implementation of Time Bound Scales Scales were changed on the ground t ound that the earlier dates were fixed by counting a nting ad hoc service, whereas the revi e revised dates have been fixed from the date of re e of regularization. However, the peti le for e petitioner cannot be held liable for PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26597 597-2017 3 the same in me in the absence of any misrepres part. srepresentation or fault on his part. Moreover, t , the petitioner is also entitled to Time ed to interest on the 23 years’ Time Bound Scale Scale benefit which fell due w.e.f. 15. .f. 15.01.2016.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for t at the el for the respondents submits that the petitioner ha er had furnished three affidavits/u .2017, vits/undertakings dated 21.06.2017,

04.01.2022 a 022 and 24.03.2023 to the effect th if any fect that he had no objection if any recovery was ry was made on account of excess pa liance ess payment. In this regard, reliance has been pla en placed upon the judgment of th urt in of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court urt of Punjab and Haryana and o 2016) nd others vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267 267, as well as the judgment rendere 8506- rendered by this Court in CWP-8506 2024 titled titled Roop Chand vs. State of Pu ed on f Punjab and others, decided on

025. 20.03.2025.

5. I have heard learned counsel f ed the nsel for the parties and perused the case file with le with their able assistance. It transpir anspires that, on the eve of retirement of the petitio petitioner, no charge-sheet, disciplina l case ciplinary proceeding or criminal case was pending ending against him. As such, with , withholding of gratuity or leave encashment ment is not justified. Any delay in lay in release of retiral dues would entail him to im to interest in terms of the judgme ch of udgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in urt in A.S. Randhawa, Superintendin te of nding Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab, 199 , 1998 (1) SCT 343, wherein it has it has been unequivocally held tha d that pensionary a nary and retiral benefits are not in y but not in the nature of a bounty but constitute a ute a vested and enforceable right a right accruing to an employee upon superannuatio nnuation. It has been clarified that any ase of at any culpable delay in the release of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26597 597-2017 4 such dues be ues beyond a reasonable period, qua onths, d, quantified therein as two months, would entail entail a corresponding liability upon t te the upon the employer to compensate the retiree by wa by way of interest on the belated paym payments.

6. There is no denial of the fact th Time fact that, at the time when the Time Bound Scales Scales were initially granted, no und m the o undertaking was obtained from the petitioner. A er. As such, the reliance placed by ed by the respondents upon Jagdev Singh’s case case (supra) and Roop Chand’s cas ble on s case (supra) is distinguishable on facts and, the nd, therefore, misplaced.

7. Further, it appears that the y the undertakings furnished by the petitioner we er were obtained under compelling c tioner lling circumstances, as the petitioner was constrain nstrained to furnish the same in order retiral order to secure release of his retiral benefits at th s at the time of retirement. Such und ot be ch undertakings, therefore, cannot be termed volun voluntary. On this count, the case uarely e case of the petitioner is squarely covered by th d by the judgment rendered by this Co , titled his Court in CWP-28761-2025, titled Ranjit Singh ingh vs. State of Punjab and other . The others, decided on 25.09.2025. The relevant porti t portion thereof reads as under:- “17. Unfortunately, practice extracting undertakings from employees w es who have been reinstated after tedious litigation is rather com common. These undertakings are exploitative as they often per pertain to forgoing past service benefits including arrears of sa y of of salary, increments, continuity of service and retiral benefits an s and are obtained by placing the employees under duress. Often ften the reinstated employees are issued fresh appointment letters r at tters, as is the case in the matter at hand, to deny them any benefi enefits of their past service, which PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26597 597-2017 5 directly impacts their regulariz larization, seniority and pensionary benefits. Considering t livelihoods are at stake, employees often remain silent i ent in the face of these exploitative practices. This Court cannot nnot allow an employer to take advantage of their employees’ f es’ financial circumstances to bend them to their will. As such, e is ch, the question framed above is answered in the following terms rms:- ‘Such exploitative undert ndertakings are void ab initio since no employee can be fo e forced to contract out of his statutory rights.”

8. Further still, the question reg excess on regarding recovering of excess payment mad nt made to a retired employee is well s nch of well settled by a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble S n’ble Supreme Court of India in Rafi Rafiq Masih’s case (supra). Which speaking thro g through Justice Jagdish Singh Kheh Khehar, opined as under: “12.

2. ….It is not possible to postulate a ate all situations of hardship, which uld govern employees on the issue issue of recovery, where payments have m ve mistakenly been made by the the employer, in excess of their entitlem titlement. Be that as it may, based d to based on the decisions referred to herein rein above, we may, as a ready refe reference, summarise the following few si w situations, wherein recoveries ries by the employers, would be imperm permissible in law: (i) Recovery from employee oyees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' a 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired em d employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of r, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees yees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in exces xcess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26597 597-2017 6 (iv) Recovery in cases where here an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge du e duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even th n though he should have rightfully been required to work against a st an inferior post. (v) In any other case, whe where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if mad d be made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary rary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balanc t to lance of the employer's right to recover.

9. In Thomas Daniel v. State of Ke SCT of Kerala and others, 2022 (2) SCT 722, a two- -Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Sup le Supreme Court, speaking through Justice S. Ab S. Abdul Nazeer, observed that no at no recovery of the excess amount paid to an em an employee can be effected when the to any the same is not attributable to any misrepresenta resentation on the part of the em levant the employee concerned. Relevant paragraph of aph of the said judgment is reproduced duced as under:- This Court in a catena of decision “9. Th the e misrep for ca interpr errone not re becaus discret will be that if that th paid, o time o discret particu 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 at if 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.” PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26597 597-2017 7

10. In that vein, this Court is of is of the considered opinion that plied) (Emphasis supplied) arbitrary or ry or uncommunicated recoveries by retiral by means of withholding retiral benefits like s like gratuity and leave encashment, elfare ment, contradict the spirit of a welfare administratio stration and demonstrate a lack of hum ll, the of humane consideration. Overall, the effect of su of such abrupt recovery extends b ror; it nds beyond administrative error; it reflects on th on the sensitivity, fairness, and acco itself. d accountability of governance itself. Therefore, e ore, even where legal remedies e dies exist, administrative prudence demands tha ds that any recovery from pension otice, ension be preceded by due notice, consultation, tation, and empathetic handling cons of the g consistent with the dignity of the retired emplo employee.

11. However as per instructions pro sel for ns provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner itioner, the petitioner shall remain sati tes of in satisfied with the changed dates of Time Bound ound Scales reckoned from the date o te of regularization.

12. In view of the above facts a resent acts and circumstances, the present petition is dis is disposed of with the following dire ng directions:- i) The respondents shall release all The of the se all admissible retiral dues of the petitioner, including gratuity and y and leave encashment, along with interest @ 6% per annum, to be f two to be calculated after expiry of two months from the date of retirement ement till its actual realization. ii) If any amount has already been If been paid, the same shall be duly adjusted. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26597 597-2017 8 iii) An Any recovery made beyond a p all be d a period of five years shall be unsustainable in view of Rafiq M iq Masih (supra). The respondents are directed to refund such recover % per ecovery along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery til very till its actual realization. iv) The The petitioner shall also be entitle nefits entitled to all consequential benefits arising out of the 23 years’ Ti Scale s’ Time Bound Promotional Scale calculable from the date of his regu is regularization.

13. Pen Pending miscellaneous applicatio lication(s), if any, shall also stand ed of. disposed of. ary 18, 2026 February 1 P.C RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document