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