CWP No.1522 of 1988 :1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 09.09.2008. (1) CWP No.1522 of 1988 Satish Kumar Verma and others ... Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. (2) CWP No.5230 of 1988 Smt.Kamla Devi ... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. SK Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. This order of mine will dispose of CWP Nos.1522 and 5230 of 1988 as the facts and the question of law involved are identical in both the petitions. However, the facts are being taken from CWP No.1522 of 1988. The petitiones have challenged the orders Annexures P-10 to P- CWP No.1522 of 1988 :2: 14, whereby the pay fixation of the petitioners has been found to be erroneous and recovery has been ordered from their emoluments besides re- ordering re-fixation of the pay. It is the admitted case of the parties that all the petitioners were working as Clerks in the pay scale of Rs.110-250/- as on 01.01.1978 when the revised pay scales were notified vide notification dated 18.10.1979, pursuant to the second pay revision. The effective date for pay revision was 01.01.1978. The Clerks in the pay scale of Rs.100- 250/- were placed in two pay scales of Rs.400-600/- and Rs.510-800/-. A note is appended to the rules that out of total cadre strength, category of Clerks 50% of the cadre strength shall be placed in Grade-I of Rs.400-600/- and 50% senior Clerks in the pay scale of Rs.510-800/-. All the petitioners were placed in the pay scale of Rs.400-600/- with effect from 01.01.1978. Subsequently, they were also granted senior scale of Rs.510-800/- as Senior Clerks being within 50% of the cadre strength. It appears that the petitioners made representation for grant of benefit of one increment on the ground that some persons junior to them who were getting lessor pay before 01.01.1978 in the pre-revised scale, have been brought at par at the minimum basic revised pay scale of Rs.510/-. On their representation, they were granted one additional increments with effect from 02.01.1978 holding that their case falls under Rule 7.1 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Scales of Pay) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Consequently, their basic pay was fixed at Rs.525/- with the addition of one increment. Subsequently, vide the impugned orders, the government has ordered refixation of their pay and also ordered recovery of the excess amount stated to he drawn by the petitioners on account of wrong fixation of their salary under Rule 7.1 (ii) of the Rules. It has been mentioned that CWP No.1522 of 1988 :3: the case of the petitioners was covered by Rule 7.1 (i) of the Rules. In the reply filed by the respondents, the stand taken is that the petitioners pay was wrongly fixed under Rule 7.1 (ii), whereas according to the respondents their pay was required to be fixed under Rule 7.1 (i) of the revised pay Rules of 1979. It is further case of the respondents that the petitioners were entitled to pay revision on the due date and not with effect from the following day of the appointed date. Mr.Sharma learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has tried to justify the revision of pay scales on the ground that the petitioners were entitled to additional increment as the persons junior to them having lessor pay in the pre-revised pay scale were brought at par on the basic pay scale of the revised pay scale and they being senior to them, were entitled to one additional increment in terms of Rule 7.1 (ii) of the Rules. It is brought to the notice of this Court that one Tarlochan Singh, who was also Junior Clerks in the pre-revised pay scale of 110-250/- was drawing Rs.135/- as on 01.01.1978, whereas the petitioners were drawing Rs.140/- on the said date and, thus, both of them having been placed in the basic pay scale of Rs.510-800/-, the petitioners were entitled to one additional increment. He has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Satpal Singh etc. Vs. Union of India etc., 1975, Current Law Journal, 707. However, from the perusal of this judgment, it appears that this judgment was based upon pay revision rules of 1969 and not the pay revision rules of 1979. There is otherwise also distinction between the rules of 1970 and the Rules quoted in the judgment and the Rule 7 of the 1979 Rules. This judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, the relevant rules are Rule 6 (iii) and Rule 7. In the present CWP No.1522 of 1988 :4: case, under Rule 7.1 (i) of the Rules, it is provided that on revision of the pay scales an employee shall get next increment on the due date as if he continued in the existing scale. However, proviso (i) to Rule 7.1 further provides that where revised pay is fixed on the minimum of the time scale and on such fixation the revised pay exceeds the existing emoluments by more than Rupees Seventy-five, the next increment shall be granted on the date it falls due in the revised pay scale. This mean if an employee is placed at the basic scale of revised pay as on 01.01.1978, and difference of revised pay and the pre-revised is more than Rs.75/-, his next increment will become due in the next year on the same day. However, proviso (ii) of Rule 7.1 provides for grant of next increment on the succeeding day following the appointed day, to a Government employee whose pay fixed on the appointed day in the revised scale is at the same stage as one fixed for another Government employee drawing pay at a lower stage than his in the same existing scale. However, where another employee at a lower stage has been granted the same pay scale in the time scale of revised pay scales, such employee shall be entitled to next increment on the day following appointed date. In the present case, the appointed date is 01.01.1978 and under such circumstances the employees covered under Clause (ii) of 7.1 shall be entitled to next increment on 01.01.1979. In the present case, the petitioners last drawn pay as on 01.01.1978 has been shown in paragraph three of the reply. Petitioner No.1, Satish Kumar, was drawing Rs.419.50 P., petitioner No.5, Nathu Ram, was drawing Rs.419.50 P., whereas petitioner Nos.2 and 3, namely, Rajpal Mittal and Jagjit Singh, respectively, were drawing Rs.463/-. Petitioner No.4, Harjit Singh, was drawing Rs.427.30 P. All these petitioners were placed in the scale of CWP No.1522 of 1988 :5: Rs.510-800/- which is the basic salary in the time scale of revised pay scale. In the cases of petitioner No.1, Satish Kumar, petitioner No.4 Harjit Singh, petitioner No.5 Nathu Ram, the difference in the pre-revised and the revised pay scale is more than Rs.75/-. Thus, their next increment shall fall due on 02.01.1979. However, in the cases of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, namely, Rajpal Mittal and Jagjit Singh, respectively, the difference between the pre-revised and the revised pay scale being less than Rs.75/-, they will be entitled to next increment on the due date as if they would have continued in the same pay scale in terms of Rule 7. (i) of the Rules. The contention of Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners that since the juniors of the petitioners were having lessor pay scale in the pre-revised scales and were brought at par, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to one additional increment. I am unable to accept this contention. There is no such provision under the rules. In the cases falling under proviso (i) of Rule 7.1 of the Rules, next increment will be available to the petitioner Nos.1,4 and 5 in the revised pay scale with effect from 02.01.1979, whereas petitioner Nos.2 and 3 will be entitled to revised pay scale on the dates otherwise due to them in the pre-revised pay scale. However, none of the petitioners were entitled to additional increment with effect from 01.01.1978. Mr.Sahu, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of respondents has vehemently argued that the pay scales were revised on the mis-representation of the petitioners. However, no material has been placed on record to show that the petitioners mis- represented the facts in any manner or played fraud with the government at the time of grant of additional increments with effect from 01.01.1978. It is CWP No.1522 of 1988 :6: settled law in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCT 668. Sahib Ram's case has been followed by this Court in the case of Het Ram Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corpn. and others, 2007 (4) SCT, 824. Since no misrepresentation or fraud has been pleaded on the part of the petitioners and the State on consideration of the representation has simply acceded to their request and granted one additional increment,therefore, no recovery can be effected from the petitioners. In view of the above circumstances, the impugned orders to the extent of recovery are unsustainable in law. All the petitioners have retired from service. The State-respondents are at liberty to refix their salary by shifting the point of grant of increment. Thereafter, their retiral benefits will be redetermined in the light of the above discussion without effecting any recovery, but by refixation of the salary and consequential order will be passed. Let the entire process be completed within a period of four months from today. With the above observations, present writ petitions are disposed of with no order as to costs. 09.09.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the reporter? NO