Sampuran Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1121 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sampuran Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 20 January, 2025

          2017 (O&M)
CWP-27859-2017                         Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007903   1




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH
230                                CWP
                                   CWP-27859-2017 (O&M)
                                   Date of decision: 20.01.2025

Sampuran Singh                                              ...Petitioner

                                     Versus

State of Punjab and others                                  ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
          *****
Present : Mr. RK Arora,, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab
                                         Punjab.
       *****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer yer made in the present petition for quashing the letters dated 31.10.2017 and 24.11.2017 whereby last pay drawn of the petitioner has been reduced from Rs.31,430/-

Rs.31,430/ to Rs.26,800/-.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Master in Physical Education on 21.01.1979 and thereafter directly appointed as Head Master on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala, vide order dated 04.1.1990 and promoted as Principal in the PES Class (School & Inspection Cadre) vide order dated 20.03.2001 w.e.f. 13.12.1996 as per his seniority iority No.551-A No.551 A on notional basis in the pay scale of Rs.10025 Rs.10025-15100/-..

Thereafter, he on attaining the age of superannuation retired on 31.01.2008. It is after about a decade that the petitioner received the impugned letter that is also on premise of decision deci rendered in CWP-2535 2535-2008 2008 titled as Rajinder Singh Mohal vs. State of Punjab and others, by stating therein that his date of promotion as Principal rincipal has been changed to 18.10.2005. However, the he said writ petition as a matter of fact has not even been ddecided ecided and is pending adjudication. Bee that as it may, may petitioner is neither party respondent therein as it has been filed against two other persons Dhar Dharampal and Mohan Lal Khosla,, besides the State of Punjab, as is apparent from Annexure P6. Reliance is

1 of 4

2017 (O&M) CWP-27859-2017 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007903 2

further placed on Rule 9.4 B(iii) of the Punjab Civil Services, Vol Vol-II, as per which Head of office may verify the correctness of emoluments for the preceding 24 months the date of retirement of a government employee and not for any period prior to that date.

da Based on the aforesaid Rule position, this Court in the case Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-881- 2015, decided on 02.05.2017 (Annexure P9), held thus thus:-

"After going through the Government Instructions (Annexure P1) and Rule 9.4(b)(iii 9.4(b)(iii)) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, II, I am of the view that if the petitioner is placed in the higher pay scale, the proficiency step ups were to be postponed by a number of years equal to the number of increments already covered by her from the minimum of the scales of the time of initial fixation of pay in the scale. However, what the respondents respondents-department department had done is that they had just calculated 18 years of service of the petitioner from the initial stage. Since the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 03.07.1975, she completed 18 years of service on 03.07.1993 and without considering the implication of Rule 7 of the Govt. Instructions (Annexure P P-

1), the additional increment was granted to the petitioner.

Thereafter, applying the said formul formula, a, on completion of 24 years of service, further ACP was granted on 03.07.1999 as per Instructions dated 25.09.1998.

I am of the view that the increments were wrongly granted. However, then the question would arise whether after 14-20 20 years of the gran grantt of said increments, the same can be withdrawn, stating that these were wrongly granted? A perusal of Rule 9.4(b)(iii) read with Rule 6.19(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II shows that for reckoning pension, the last drawn pay is to be seen and the office is to verify only the correctness of the emoluments for the period of 24 months preceding the date of retirement of the Govt. Employee and not for any period prior to that date. Therefore, the Accountant General was not justified in checking up the entire service record of the petitioner to see whether from the initial stage, the increments of proficiency step ups were correctly granted or not. Therefore, the order of withdrawing the proficiency step ups granted on 03.07.1993 and 03.07.1999 aare re contrary to Rule 9.4(b)(iii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. Even if, it is assumed that the pay was wrongly fixed, in view of the authority of Hon'ble the Supreme Court "State of Punjab and others etc. v Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc.", 2015(2)SCC (Civil) 608, the recovery cannot be effected from the retiral dues of the petitioner.

2 of 4

2017 (O&M) CWP-27859-2017 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007903 3

In somewhat similar circumstances, the Apex Court in "Sushil Kumar Singhal v Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and Ors.", 2014 (3) S.C.T. 98, quashed the refixation of the pay and the recovery orders. In the Rule under consideration in the said case, the pension fixation authority then enquire the emoluments only for last 10 months, whereas under Rule 9.4(b)(iii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume me II, the correctness of the emoluments for the period of 24 months preceding the date of retirement of the Govt. employee and not for any period prior to that date, are verified.

As a result of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed. The impugned memo dated 27.12.2013 (Annexure P-5),5), order endorsed on 26.05.2014 (Annexure P-6)

6) are hereby quashed. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 11.07.2014 (Annexure P P-9)

9) and dated 23.06.2014 (Annexure P-8) 8) are also hereby quashed. The amount mount already recovered, in pursuant to these orders be refunded to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of payment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

3. Hon'ble the Supreme court in Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and others, Civil Appeal No.5262 of 2008, decided on 17.04.2014, 17.04.2014, while dealing with the Rules that were pari materia to the ones involved herein also held thus:

hus:-

"7.

7. Upon perusal of the aforestated G.O. and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it is not in dispute that the appellant had retired on 31st December, 2003 and at the time of his retirement his salary was Rs.11,625/- and on the basis of the said salary his pension had been fixed as Rs.9000/ Rs.9000/-.. Admittedly, if any mistake had been committed in pay fixation, the mistake had been committed in 1986, i.e. much prior to the retirement of the appellant and therefore,, by virtue of the aforestated G.O. dated 16th January, 2007, neither any salary paid by mistake to the appellant could have been recovered nor pension of the appellant could have been reduced.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent employer could ould not deny any of the facts stated hereinabove.

9. In the aforestated circumstances, the High Court was not correct while permitting the respondent authorities to reduce the pension payable to the appellant by not setting aside the

3 of 4

2017 (O&M) CWP-27859-2017 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007903 4

order whereby excess amount of salary paid to the appellant was sought to be recovered.

10. For the aforestated reasons, we quash the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court and direct the respondents not to recover any amount of salary which had been paid to the appellantnt in pursuance of some mistake committed in pay fixation in 1986. The amount of pension shall also not be reduced and the appellant shall be paid pension as fixed earlier at the time of his retirement. It is pertinent to note that the Government had frameframed d such a policy under its G.O. dated 16th January, 2007 and therefore, the respondent authorities could not have taken a different view in the matter of re re-fixing fixing pension of the appellant.

11. The submission made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the appellant would be getting more amount than what he was entitled to cannot be accepted in view of the policy laid down by the Government in G.O. dated 16th January, 2007. If the Government feels that mistakes are committed very often, it would be open to the Government to change its policy but as far as the G.O. dated 16th January, 2007 is in force, the respondent respondent-

employer could not have passed any order for recovery of the excess salary paid to the appellant or for reducing pension of the appellant.

12. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment as well as the order dated 23.03.2005 whereby salary of the appellant was re re-fixed fixed and order dated 23.04.2005 whereby recovery of excess amount of Rs.99,522/- was ordered to be recovered from the appellant. The appellant shall be paid pension which had been determined at the time of his retirement, i.e. immediately after 31st December, 2003. The appeal is disposed of as allowed with no order as to co costs."

4. Learned State counsel despite his best efforts has been unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments judgment or cite any contrary law.

5. In wake of the above, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in Sarabjit Kaur (supra).

20.01.2025                                          (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
ashok                                                      JUDGE
             Whether speaking                  :     Yes/No
             Whether reportable                :     Yes/No




                                      4 of 4