C.W.P No. 3644 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 3644 of 2008 Date of decision : May 11, 2009 Daya Nand, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. G.K.Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The petitioner challenges the orders dated 17.12.2007 (Annexure P-6) and 17.12.2007 (Annexure P-7) whereby pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 and ACP pay scale of Rs.5000-7850-7850 granted to the petitioner were withdrawn and recovery of Rs.3,42, 167/- was ordered. The petitioner, who was under Matric and having ITI certificate, joined as work charged T.Mate with the respondent department on 16.11.1977. His services were regularized w.e.f 17.10.1983. Prior to 1.5.1990, T.Mates who were non-matric and having ITI certificate were C.W.P No. 3644 of 2008 ::2:: placed in the pay scale of Rs.750-940, and those who were Matriculates and had ITI certificate were placed in the pay scale of Rs.950-1400. Thereafter, w.e.f 1.5.1990, the aforesaid two pay scales were substituted by one pay scale i.e Rs.1200-2040. Meanwhile, the petitioner passed his Matriculation examination. He along with others filed CWP No.7625 of 2000 claiming the aforesaid pay scale, and by order dated 14.3.2002 the said writ petition was allowed. The SLP filed by the State was dismissed by order dated 1.10.2002. Accordingly, the pay of the petitioner was re-fixed in the new pay scales. However, after his retirement, by the impugned orders the pay of the petitioner was re-fixed in the lower pay scale, and recovery ordered. The defence taken is that the pay scales granted to the petitioner were withdrawn as per instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. In my opinion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Any subsequent instructions which were issued in the face of the earlier judgment of this Court-which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court- cannot be countenanced. A binding judgment cannot be avoided by any subsequent instructions in this fashion. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders of recovery are set aside. The respondents are directed not to make any recovery from the petitioner. No costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 11, 2009. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 3644 of 2008 ::3::