IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 11599 of 2008 Decided on October 13, 2011. Daler Singh …Petitioner. Versus The Managing Director, HP State Civil Supplies Corporation & Others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the respondents Ms. Bhavna Dutta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner, after having served in the Armed Forces from December, 1964 to 1.1.1989, joined service as Public Distribution Clerk, with respondent No. 1 on 27.3.1999, in the pay scale of ` 3330-6200. In fact, at the time when the petitioner was appointed, he was placed in the unrevised pay scale of ` 950-1800, which was revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996 to ` 3330-6200. Vide notification dated 25.10.2000, pay scale of `3330-6200 was bifurcated into two pay scales, one of ` 4400-7000 and the other of ` 3120-5160. 50% senior persons, Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - manning the cadre of Public Distribution Clerks, were placed in the higher pay scale and the remaining 50% in the lower pay scale. Petitioner was placed in the lower pay scale and his pay was re-fixed. Initially, when the scale was revised to ` 3330-6200, his pay was fixed at ` 6200/-, the maximum of the pay, vide Annexure PA, giving him the benefit of Army Service. However, when pay scales were further revised and the scale of Distribution Clerks was bifurcated and the petitioner was placed in the lower scale, his pay was fixed at the maximum of the scale, i.e. ` 5160/-, per Annexure P-9. Because of this re-fixation of pay, petitioner was found to have been paid ` 67,512/-, in excess, on account of salary. The aforesaid amount was sought to be recovered vide letter dated 2.9.2003, Annexure PB. By that time, petitioner already stood retired. He filed Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking quashing of the aforesaid order of recovery, Annexure PB and also issuance of direction to the respondents to pay his retiral benefits. On abolition of the said Tribunal, matter has come to this Court, where it has been registered as CWP (T) 11599 of 2008. 3. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that since the petitioner was placed in the lower of the bifurcated pay scales, i.e. pay scale of ` 3120-5160, his pay was fixed at the maximum of such scale, i.e. ` - 3 - 5160/-, on the date of his joining service under the respondents, and by the time he retired on 30.11.2002, his pay rose to ` 5640/-, on accrual of increments. 4. Bifurcation of pay scales took place in the year 2000, vide notification dated 25.10.2000. Petitioner retired from service on 30.11.2002. Till his retirement, respondents took no action to re-fix the pay of the petitioner in the lower of the bifurcated pay scales. It was only after his retirement that his pay was re-fixed in the said lower scale and impugned order, Annexure PB, for recovery of `67,512/- issued. Petitioner was, in no way, responsible for wrong fixation of his pay or non revision of his pay fixation, after the issuance of notification dated 25.10.2000, by which pay scale of the petitioner was reduced. 5. Also, there is nothing on record, indicating if the petitioner was aware of the aforesaid notification dated 25.10.2000 and hence, he could not be expected to have asked for re-fixation of his pay in terms of the aforesaid notification of October, 2000. 6. In this type of cases, recovery cannot be effected, especially when order of recovery is passed, after retirement of an employee. In this view of the matter, I place reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar And Others , (2009) 3 SCC 475. - 4 - 7. Consequently, order, Annexure PB, is quashed. Respondents are directed to release the retiral benefits, due to the petitioner, within two months. Disposed of. October 13, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.