CWP No.15881 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15881 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.05.2010 **** Rajinder Kaur . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. RK Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was appointed as a Art & Craft - Sewing Teacher in the pay scale of Rs.170-350 which was later on revised to Rs.570-1080 w.e.f. 01.01.1978. The petitioner has finally retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.10.2009 from the corresponding revised pay-scales. A few days before her retirement, the impugned order dated 10.09.2009 (Annexure P4) has been passed, whereby her pay-scale has been reduced retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.1978 as according to the respondents, the petitioner was entitled to the pay scale of 480-880 instead of Rs.570-1080. CWP No.15881 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. (3). The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit maintaining that the revised pay scale was erroneously granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1978. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties I find that the impugned order dated 10.09.2010 (Annexure P4) cannot sustain for more than one reason. (5). Firstly, the said order visits the petitioner with civil consequences and no opportunity of hearing has been granted to her before passing the same. Secondly, no reason whatsoever has been assigned as to why the petitioner was not entitled to the scale of Rs.570-1080 w.e.f. 01.01.1978? Thirdly, the respondents have overlooked various decisions passed by this Court in this regard as well as the stand taken by the respondents themselves in many such cases including in (i) CWP No.1559 of 1987 (Gurcharan Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others); (ii) CWP No.109 of 1991 (Prabhjot Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others); (iii) CWP No.6306 of 1991 (Nirmal Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others) etc. CWP No.15881 of 2009.doc - 3 – (6). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned dated 10.09.2009 (Annexure P4) is hereby quashed with a direction to the respondents to re-consider the petitioner’s claim for her placement in the pay-scale of 570-1080 w.e.f. 01.01.1978. The respondents shall also take into consideration the replies and/or the orders passed by this Court in this regard from time to time while determining her claim. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, till then the petitioner shall continue to draw her retiral benefits in the revised/reduced pay scale as already directed vide order dated October 15, 2009. Suffice to say that if the claim of the petitioner for her placement in the higher pay scale is accepted, she shall be granted all the consequential and the retiral benefits. (7). However, the respondents, in the event of rejecting the petitioner’s claim, shall not be entitled to effect recovery in view of the parameters laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511, moreso when it is not their case that the petitioner obtained any CWP No.15881 of 2009.doc - 4 – undeserving monetary benefit through fraud, mis- representation or deceptive means. (8). Recovery, if any, already effected shall also be refunded to the petitioner within the stipulated period. (9). Ordered accordingly. (10). Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 17.05.2010 vishal shonkar