IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP. No. 14954 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.3.2011. Pritam Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 2. CWP. No. 12269 of 2010 Raj Kumar Garg & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 3. CWP. No. 12344 of 2010 Pawan Kumar Garg & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 4. CWP. No. 13777 of 2010 Shamsher & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 5. CWP. No. 14093 of 2010 Bhagwan Dass & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 6. CWP. No. 15167 of 2010 Raj Kumar & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 7. CWP. No. 15170 of 2010 Krishan Chander & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 8. CWP. No. 15224 of 2010 Hardial Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CWP. No. 14954 of 2010 -2- 9. CWP. No. 15485 of 2010 Sadhu Ram & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 10. CWP. No. 16181 of 2010 Amar Nath & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 11. CWP. No. 16156 of 2010 Om Parkash & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 12. CWP. No. 16806 of 2010 Bura Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 13. CWP. No. 16814 of 2010 Gian Chand Verma & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 14. CWP. No. 17357 of 2010 Saroj Bala & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 15. CWP. No. 17504 of 2010 Baldev Raj Sharma & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 16. CWP. No. 18936 of 2010 Gurbachan Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CWP. No. 14954 of 2010 -3- 17. CWP. No. 18692 of 2010 Surjit Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 18. CWP. No. 18732 of 2010 Krishan Kumar Gupta & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 19. CWP. No. 18640 of 2010 Bhagwant Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 20. CWP. No. 18444 of 2010 Vijay Kumar & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 21. CWP. No. 20395 of 2010 Gurdarshan Singh Mavi & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 22. CWP. No. 20518 of 2010 Kashmir Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 23. CWP. No. 21160 of 2010 Janak Raj & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 24. CWP. No. 22564 of 2010 Kanwaljit Kaur & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CWP. No. 14954 of 2010 -4- 25. CWP. No. 22635 of 2010 Joginder Kaur & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 26. CWP. No. 22683 of 2010 Surjit Lal & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 27. CWP. No. 22891 of 2010 Ranjit Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 28. CWP. No. 23035 of 2010 Amar Lal Baghla & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 29. CWP. No. 23175 of 2010 Megh Raj & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 30. CWP. No. 23237 of 2010 Gurdev Kaur --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 31. CWP. No. 4022 of 2011 Sarwan Kumar & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 32. CWP. No. 936 of 2011 Gurnaib Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CWP. No. 14954 of 2010 -5- 33. CWP. No. 4555 of 2011 Mohinder Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate. Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate. Mr. Vikas Chatrah, Advocate. Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate. Mr. S.B. Nagpal, Advocate. Mr. K.S. Hissowal, Advocate. Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab with Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Since common questions both related to facts and law have been raised in all these writ petitions relating to exercise of new options for application of the revised pay scales, all these petitions have been taken up and are being decided by this common order. All the petitioners were/are Govt. employees. State of Punjab revised the pay scales of Punjab Govt. employees in the year 1988 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 under the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988. Under Rules 5 and 6 of the aforesaid rules, an employee was required to exercise option for existing scale of pay or revised scale of pay. However, the option to come over to the revised scale from the date of next increment or subsequent increment falling after 1.1.1986 was to be exercised not later than 31.12.1987. On 31.5.1989 State issued another notification inserting CWP. No. 14954 of 2010 -6- clause (EE) in Rule 3 of the revised pay rules, 1988 incorporating change in the pay scale. Most of the petitioners had already exercised the option when this new rule was incorporated. Vide another notification dated 24.12.1992 master scale was further varied. This notification was in fact issued in view of bunching of old pay scales. Notification dated 24.12.1992 was issued to rectify the mistake. A number of writ petitions came to be filed before this Court including CWP No. 953 of 1996 which came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.3.1996 and directions were given for change of options as grant of options up to 31.12.1987 under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1988 caused loss of one increment to those employees. Following directions have been issued in the aforesaid writ petition:- “ Consequently, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for exercise of revised option in terms of the direction given on 21.11.1995 in Civil Writ Peititon No. 18380 of 1994. We further direct the Govt. to issue written instructions to all the competent authorities within a period of fifteen days directing them to call upon all similarly situated persons to exercise their revised option for fixation of their pay. All the competent authorities should be directed to decide the case of revised option within a specified time frame of two or three months.” It seems that no circular was issued by the State Govt. in this regard as directed and a large number of employees could not exercise the option. Such employees who were in disadvantageous position continued to file writ petitions. All these petitions were allowed from time to time. One of such writ petition being CWP No. 9765 of 2010 (O&M) titled as CWP. No. 14954 of 2010 -7- Harsurinder Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab and others came to be decided by this Court with the following directions:- “Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part to the extent that while the respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to exercise their options afresh in terms of the Finance Department's Circular dated 24.12.1992 (Annexure P-2) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, no resultant arrears of pay shall be paid to them and they shall be entitled for notional pay fixation only w.e.f. 1.1.1986, 1.1.1996 and 1.1.2006, as the case may be. The petitioners, however, shall be paid emoluments/pension along with arrears as per their re-fixed pay w.e.f. 1.3.2010 onwards. Ordered accordingly. Dasti.” Directions issued in the aforesaid case have been implemented by the Finance Department letter dated 24.1.2011, which reads as under:- “ That to implement the orders passed in CWP Nos. 7664 of 2009, 8936 of 2010, 9140 of 2010, 9765 of 2010, 9956 of 2010, 10566 of 2010 and 15803 of 2008, the Finance Department has given an approval to change the option by the petitioner employees subject to the condition that their pay will be fixed notionally as per the orders of the court and they will not be paid any arrears. It is further made clear that in other similar cases/ matters necessary change of option be allowed. Sd/- Jasbir Kaur Under Secretary, Finance” The aforesaid letter was followed by another memo dated 7.2.2011, whereby directions have been issued to the Director, Education Department (S.E), Punjab, Chandigarh for implementation of the Court judgement and allowing the concerned employees to exercise option as per the Govt. decision referred to above. CWP. No. 14954 of 2010 -8- In view of the above Finance Department letter and circular dated 7.2.2011, the petitioners are entitled to exercise their options, though, notionally without any arrears. These writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. The petitioners shall be, however, entitled to the actual benefit as per the re-fixed pay w.e.f. 1.3.2010. It is contended on behalf of the writ petitioners that some of the employees have been given the financial benefit and the same is now sought to be recovered. Admittedly any benefit given to the petitioners is without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. In view of the dictum of Full Bench judgement of this Court in case of (Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others), passed in CWP No. 2799 of 2008. Respondents are not entitled to make any recovery from the petitioners in respect to any benefit received by the petitioners before 24.1.2011. Copy of this order be placed on each connected file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 17.3.2011. lucky