IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8588 of 2004 Date of Decision : December 17, 2010. Gursewak Singh and others .....Petitioner versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate, Mr.Kapil Kakkar, Advocate and Ms.Anju Arora, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.8588 of 2004, 11543 of 2003, 11703 of 2003, 10562 of 2004, 10657 of 2004, 11027 of 2004, 12273 of 2004, 12399of 2004, 15234 of 2004 and 3161 of 2005, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ petition No.8588 of 2004. The petitioners are serving/retired employees of the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board (now Power Com.) and are aggrieved by the orders dated 12.10.1994 and 17.4.2002 (Annexure P-6 & P-8 respectively) C.W.P.No .8588 of 2004 2 whereby the revised (improved) pay scales of Rs.830-1560 and Rs.950- 1800 (with initial start of Rs.1000/-) granted to them w.e.f. 1.1.1986, have been withdrawn and consequential recoveries are sought to be effected on the premise that the improved pay scales were to be granted to the regular employees only not to the work-charged employees like the petitioners. The petitioners' case is that the `improved' revised pay scales were granted by the Board by taking a conscious decision as is reflected in its notification dated 11.11.1988 which provides as follows:- “The work-charged employees who were drawing the identical pay scales as that of the regular employees, shall be given the corresponding replacement scale.” Thereafter also, the Board issued a Circular dated 26.4.1990 (Annexure P1) to the following effect:- “The Punjab State Electricity Board is pleased to decide as under:- (i) The employees borne on work-charged Establishment would be entitled to the revised scales of pay applicable to the regular employees, where corresponding posts/scales of pay on Regular Establishment exist as per provisions contained in concluding para of 1 st Schedule attached to Office Order No.129/PRC/Fin-1988 dated 11.11.1988. (ii) The categories of work-charged employees who are not drawing the identical pay scales available to the similar regular categories will be allowed revised replacement scales corresponding to their pre- revised scales as under:- C.W.P.No .8588 of 2004 3 Sr.No. Existing Corresponding replacement Scales Scales. 1. 300-430 750-1350 2. 325-495 810-1440 350-525} 350-600} 830-1560” (emphasis applied) It is urged that once the Board had granted the revised higher pay scales by taking a conscious policy decision, the said benefit cannot be withdrawn and that too retrospectively. The petitioners also urge that the impugned action visits them with civil consequences yet no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to them before passing the impugned orders. The respondent-authorities have filed their reply-affidavit maintaining that as per the Board's circular(s) the benefit of improved pay scales was meant for the regular employees only but due to its mis- construction and misrepresentation that the said benefit was extended to the work-charged employes also. It is accordingly argued that the authorities were entitled to rectify their inadvertent mistake and recover the undeserving monetary benefits drawn by the petitioners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. It emerges from the contents of various notifications/circulars referred to by the parties that vide the first notification dated 11.11.1988, the Board had categorically decided that “the employees working on work- C.W.P.No .8588 of 2004 4 charged establishment would be entitled to the revised scales of pay as applicable to the regular employees where corresponding posts/scales of pay of regular establishment exists...........”. It was so re-iterated vide circular dated 26.4.1990 (Annexure P-1) also and pursuant thereto only that the work-charged employees like the petitioners were kept at par their regular counter-parts in the matter of grant of revised pay scale(s). The question which arises for consideration, is as to whether or not the petitioners were also entitled to further improved pay scales granted retrospectively vide subsequent order dated 3.10.1990 (Annexure P-2)? In my considered view, the subsequent circular/order dated 3.10.1990 nowhere suggests any conscious decision for not granting the improved pay scales to the work-charged employees by maintaining parity with their regular counter-parts. I say so for the reason that the subsequent circular/order dated 3.10.1990 is “in continuation to the previous circulars issued by the Board from time to time” and “is meant to further revising the scales of pay” of the categories of the employees mentioned therein, w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The circular does not restrict the benefit of further revision qua the regular employees only. Once the Board vide its previous decisions dated 11.11.1988 and 26.4.1990, had consciously brought parity between the pay scale(s) of work-charged employees and their regular counter- parts, the work-charged employees would be, as a matter of right, entitled to the further revision, if any, granted to the regular employees unless such a benefit is expressly denied to them by way of a reasonable classifation within the meaning of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. No C.W.P.No .8588 of 2004 5 such conscious decision has been placed on record by the respondents. In Punjab State Electricity Board and others versus Dharam Singh and others (2008 (1) SCT 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if an authority has taken a conscious decision to grant the pay scales of a `regular employee' to his `work-charged counter-part', there can be no justification in law for reduction of the pay scales of the work- charged employees on the artificial distinction based upon their status as regular or work-charged employees. A Division Bench of this Court had also earlier taken somewhat similar view in The State of Punjab versus Dr.Gautam Mahajan (1994 (1) SCT 776). The respondents heavily relies upon yet another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and others versus Jagjiwan Ram and others, Civil Appeal No.890 of 2009, decided on 12.2.2009. In my considered view, the dictum therein does not advance the case of the respondents. In Jagjiwan Ram's case (supra), the Apex Court held that a work-charged employee cannot claim parity as a matter of right, with the employees on the regular establishment. It was further held that the time bound promotional pay scale admissible to an employee on completion of 9/16 years of regular service cannot be claimed by the work- charged employees on the plea of parity nor they can claim the fixation of pay in the higher pay scales or grant of increments etc. at par with the regular employees. The question that arises for consideration herein is altogether different. The petitioners do not seek a mandamus to command the C.W.P.No .8588 of 2004 6 respondents to grant them the pay scales and other service benefits at par with their regular counterparts. Their claim is that once the respondents at their own had taken a conscious decision to grant them the pay scale(s) at par with their regular counterparts, they cannot turn around and withdraw such benefits retrospectively. The facts of the case in hand are, thus, closure to the case of Dharam Singh and others' Case (supra). There is one more aspect of the matter. Assuming that the petitioners were granted the improved revised pay scales inadvertently due to the alleged misconstruction or mis-interpretation of the circular dated 3.10.1990, yet no recovery can be allowed to be effected from them as it is not a case where the petitioners mis-represented the facts and/or misled or deceived the authorities to secure any monetary gain. In such an eventuality, the principles laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T. 333, would come to the petitioners' rescue and the impugned orders qua recovery could not be passed against them in any eventuality. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 12.10.1994 and 17.4.2002 (Annexures P-6 & P- 8) are hereby quashed. The recovery, if any, already effected from the petitioners is directed to be refunded to them within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. December 17, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE