IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6807 of 2010 a/w CWP No.6942 of 2010. Decided on: 21st February, 2011. 1. CWP No. 6807 of 2010 Jia Lal vs. The Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Milk Producers’ Federation Limited and anr. 2. CWP No. 6942 of 2010 Hari Ram vs. The Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Milk Producers’ Federation Limited and anr. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners are aggrieved on account of recovery sought to be effected pursuant to Annexure P-1. It is seen from Annexure P-1 that the recovery is made on account of re-fixation of pay. But, the fact remains that the petitioners were being paid increments since 1989 and on account of re-fixation of the scale in 2010, the incremental benefit already paid since 1989 is sought to be withdrawn as per the impugned order. According to the petitioners, similarly situated Dairy Helpers are being given arrears, whereas in the case of the petitioners, who are 2 senior Dairy Helpers, on account of re-fixation, benefits already granted to them are being withdrawn. Still further, it is submitted that recovery is even without notice. The learned counsel for the Federation submits that the petitioners have a statutory remedy of appeal before the Board of Directors. But the moot question, be it the Federation or the Appellate Authority has to consider is whether the benefits, which are being paid as part of the pay scale since 1989, could be recovered at this distance of time, be it on the pretext of re-fixation of pay. Umpteen judgments on this point are apparently against the stand now taken by the 1st respondent. However, in view of submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Federation, it is only appropriate that the Board of Directors, considers the matter. 2. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the 1st respondent to treat this memorandum of writ petition as an appeal filed by the petitioners and take appropriate action in light of observations made by us in this judgment. Needful shall be done as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner concerned before the 1st respondent. The interim order shall continue. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 21st February, 2011 ( Justice Sanjay Karol ), (rana/pankaj) Judge.