[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 December, 2025
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
AT CHANDIGARH.
128 LPA-3501-2025 (O&M).
Date of Decision: 04.12.2025.
Hardeep Singh ....Appellant.
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents.
***
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
---
Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab.
****
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)
CM-8659-LPA-2025
This application is for condonation of delay of 305 days in filing
the appeal.
It is stated in the application, that the applicant/appellant had
earlier preferred an application seeking review of the impugned judgement,
which was dismissed on 22.08.2025 and after the dismissal of the said
application, he has preferred the instant appeal.
Issue notice in the application.
Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab, accepts notice of the application on behalf of the respondent-State and
submits that she has no objection if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
1 of 4
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and
delay of 305 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM-8660-LPA-2025
Exemption application is allowed, as prayed for.
Main Case
This appeal by the employee is directed against the judgment of
the Single Bench dated 19.12.2024, whereby the writ petition preferred by
him challenging the refixation of his grade pay from Rs.5400/- to Rs.5000/-,
has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the appellant
was held entitled to the grade pay of Rs.5400/- and had been given that
benefit, which he had drawn for five years, the same could not have been
reduced at the time of computation of his pension and other retiral benefits.
He has referred to the instructions issued by the respondents on 30.10.2015, to
submit that under the ACP Scheme, the employees were entitled to the higher
pay scale and the subsequent instructions could not take away the right which
had vested in the appellant.
3. Heard.
4. The appellant was working as a Punjabi Master in Government
Senior Secondary School, Jandwala Mira Sangla, District Fazilka. Vide
Notification dated 27.05.2009, the pay scale was revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to
Rs.10300-34800+3600 Grade Pay. The pay scales of the Masters were again
revised w.e.f. 01.10.2011 and the Grade Pay was increased to Rs.4600/-. The
Grade Pay was once again revised to Rs.5000/- w.e.f. 01.12.2011. The
respondents had issued instructions on 03.11.2006, whereby the
2 of 4
benefit of ACP was to be granted on completion of 04 years, 09 years and 14
years of service. The appellant had completed nine years of service and vide
order dated 05.12.2013, he was granted the benefit of ACP and his pay scale
was refixed by granting him Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-.
5. We are in agreement with the judgment of the Single Bench that
the Grade Pay of the appellant was inadvertently fixed at Rs.5400/- although
there were no categorical instructions in this regard. The instructions dated
03.11.2006 were clarified only vide instructions dated 01.01.2018 wherein it
was stipulated that only one annual increment is to be given to the employees
who are eligible for the benefit of ACP and not the revised higher grade pay.
Therefore, the grade pay of the appellant was re-fixed at Rs.5000/- at the time
of his superannuation. This has been done in the case of other similarly
situated employees and the respondents are not effecting any recovery in that
regard.
6. The appellant is stated to have superannuated on 31.03.2017 and
had been granted extension and had continued to be in service till 31.03.2019.
The respondents are not effecting any recovery from the appellant for the
higher grade pay inadvertently paid to him. We are in agreement with the
Single Bench that the instructions issued on 01.01.2018 are not retrospective
in nature but are only a clarification that those cases where ACP is applicable,
only an increment is to be granted instead of increase in Grade Pay. There are
no clear instructions which would indicate that the appellant was entitled to a
Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-. The appellant is eligible only for the benefit of an
additional increment in terms of the ACP Scheme as per the instructions.
3 of 4
7. Consequently, we do not find any illegality in the judgement of
the Single Bench dismissing the writ petition and the Letters Patent Appeal
being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
JUDGE
04.12.2025
jitender
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
4 of 4
