CWP No.22682 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 05.05.2011 Prem Parkash Vs. State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.MK Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner was working as E-Mechanic in F.M. & C.P. Division, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpur Kandi Township, Pathankot. He retired from service on 31.10.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. In the year 1988, Punjab Third Pay Commission submitted its report with regard to fixation/revision of pay scales of the Govt. employees. Chapter-26 of the said report pertained to skilled and semi-skilled staff, working in different departments. The Commission rationalised the pay scales of skilled and semi-skilled employees working in the pay scales of Rs.450- 800/-, 510-880. 510-800, 525-825/-. All these categories were re- designated as Technician Grade-III. Their pay scales were revised to Rs.1200-2100/-. The recommendations of the Third Pay Commission were accepted by the Government of Punjab including the recommendations as made under Chapter-26. A notification to this effect was issued by the CWP No.22682 of 2010 -2- State-respondent framing the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988. The recommendations of the Pay Commission were made applicable with effect from 01.01.1986. Thereafter, the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms vide letter dated 26.10.1988 directed all the Heads of the Departments in the State to implement the Third Pay Commission Report as per the notification aforesaid. Pay revision was further revised on the recommendations of 4th and 5th Pay Commissions. Vide the impugned order dated 11.09.2002, para 26.4 of Chapter-26 of Third Pay Commission notification was withdrawn. However, the petitioner had already received the benefit of the pay revision before it was withdrawn. After the retirement of the petitioner, the office of the Accountant General sanctioned the gratuity of the petitioner vide order dated 30.12.2009, but while releasing the gratuity, a sum of Rs.105161/- has been recovered as excess dues on account of withdrawal of pay scale of Rs.1200-2100/-. A similar issue came up before this Court for consideration in the case of Thein Dam Workers Union (Regd.), Shahpurkandi Vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.1067 of 2003), decided on 27.03.2009, a Division Bench of this Court while upholding the right of State to withdraw the benefit prospectively, permitted re-fixation of the pay, but without any right to recover the amount already paid. This judgment has been followed by a Single Bench of this Court in the case of CWP No.13108 of 2010 (Tilak Raj Vs. State of Punjab and others), decided on 20.1.2011. The controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment aforesaid. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 30.12.2009 (Annexure P- CWP No.22682 of 2010 -3- 2) is hereby quashed and set aside so far as recovery from the petitioner is concerned. However, the respondents are at liberty to re-fix the salary of the petitioner. No costs. 05.05.2011 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE