IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5524 of 1994 Date of Decision : July 09, 2010. Kamal Chand and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Ms.Maninder, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.H.S.Brar, Additional AG, Punjab. Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -.- 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.5524, 2224, 4279, 5115 of 1994 and 706 of 1995 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No.5524 of 1994. The petitioners are the Canal Patwaries working with the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation. They seek quashing of the orders dated 10.12.1993 (Annexures P-5 to P-7) whereby they have been ordered to be reverted from the pay scale of Rs.1350-2400 to their previous pay scale of Rs.950-1800 w.e.f. 1.1.1988 and have been further re-designated C.W.P.No .5524 of 1994 2 as Junior Canal Patwaries. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondent-Corporation has filed its reply-affidavit in which it is averred that the senior/higher pay scale of Rs.1350-2400 was admissible to the senior most 50% Canal Patwaries only on the basis of their total cadre strength but it was erroneously granted in excess to the prescribed limit. There is, however, no denial to the fact that after promoting the petitioners as Senior Canal Patwaries in the higher pay scale, no show cause notice or opportunity of being heard was afforded to them before passing the impugned orders whereby their designation as well as the higher pay scale both have been withdrawn retrospectively. The impugned orders undoubtedly visit the petitioners with civil consequences and are thus liable to be quashed on this short ground alone. Besides this, it appears that no recovery on withdrawal of the higher pay scale earlier granted to the petitioners can be allowed to be effected. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners were instrumentals in mis-representing the facts or they played any fraud to deceive the authorities for seeking higher pay scales. The benefit was granted by the respondents, may be on mis-interpretation of the Government notification adopted by the Corporation. In such like situation, no recovery of the alleged excess payment can be effected as law 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. Somewhat similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in (2010) 1 SCC 440 C.W.P.No .5524 of 1994 3 (Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and others versus Israil Khan and others) also. For the reasons aforestated, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are hereby quashed. Though the respondents are given liberty to re-fix the petitioners' pay after issuing show cause notice to them, if so required, however, in the event of re-fixation of pay in the lower pay-scale, no recovery shall be effected from the petitioners. Dasti. July 09, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE