CWP No.19530 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19530 of 2008 Date of Decision: 8.12.2009 Pakhar Singh ...Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.S.K.Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.L.Gupta, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2 & 3. --- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? --- Vinod K.Sharma, J . (Oral This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of CWP No.19530 of 2008 2 India is directed against the order dated 6.11.2008 passed by respondent No.2, refixing his salary, after retirement. The petitioner joined the services of the respondents as Conductor on regular basis w.e.f. 8.12.1970. On attaining the age of superannuation he retired from service on 30.6.2008. Pensionary benefits were not released to the petitioner. On 6.11.2008 the respondent No.2 passed an order refixing the salary of the petitioner, and ordered the recovery of Rs.60,440/- (Rupees sixty thousand four hundred and forty only) said to have been wrongly paid to the petitioner. The amount was directed to be recovered from the gratuity payable. The petitioner challenged the order on the plea that before re- fixing the salary no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, which is against principle of natural justice. Notice of the writ petition was issued. Writ petition is opposed by the respondents, on the plea that the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed on account of option given by the petitioner to come to revised pay scale, on a later date then the date fixed under the Rules i.e. 1.1.1978. This resulted in grant of higher pay scale to the petitioner, to which he was otherwise not entitled to. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioner before refixing his salary at a lower stage than the one which he was getting, till the date of retirement. On consideration of matter, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order cannot be sustained as it was not open to the authorities to recover the amount CWP No.19530 of 2008 3 even if it was paid wrongly unless fraud and misrepresentation was alleged against an employee. The impugned part of the order ordering recovery, therefore, is hit by judgment of Full Bench of this court in the case of Budh Ram & Ors. Vs. Haryana State (2009-3) PLR 511. The order refixing the salary of the petitioner otherwise also cannot be sustained as under the rules an option is given to an employee to opt for revised scale on a later date, than the date of enforcement. Option exercised by the petitioner, therefore, to be placed in revised scale on a later date can not be said to be bad in law. The ground on which the pay has been refixed is, therefore, not sustainable. Needless to say that the impugned order, otherwise also is liable to be set aside being in violation of principles of natural justice, as no notice was issued before refixing the pay of the petitioner at lower stage. For the reasons stated, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to release the retiral benefits to the petitioner, within a period of 2 months from the receipt of the copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on account of delayed payment at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. No costs. (Vinod K.Sharma) 08.12.2009 Judge rp