CWP No.11218 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 11218 of 2003 Date of Decision: 15 - 9 - 2010 S.S.Dhaliwal and others ....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Dr.Balram K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Anamika Negi, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) There is a difference between the basic pay scale and the placement scale and when revision of pay has to take place, the basic pay scale is to be taken into consideration for reckoning the service and thereafter the employee is to be placed in the placement scale. The aforesaid aspect has been examined by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.9023 of 2002, titled as, `Dr.Rameshwar Chander and others v. The State of Punjab and others', decided on 7.9.2010. In the present writ petition, a prayer has been made that a direction be isued to the State Government to re-fix the pay of the CWP No.11218 of 2003 [2] petitioners after applying the conversion table to the pay scale of Rs.3700- 5300/-. Rs.3700-5300/- is not the basic pay scale of the petitioners but it is the pay scale in which they were placed after completion of 18 years of service. The basic pay scale of the petitioners was Rs.3000-4500/-. Before the revision of pay scales took place with effect from 1.1.1986, the basic pay scale of the petitioners was Rs.3000-4500/- and giving the benefit of 18 years of service, they were granted the placement scale of Rs.3700-5300/-, which upon revision was converted into Rs.14,300-18,150/-. To make it functional so that the increments earned do not go beyond the maximum of pay scale, bunching of 3 x 1 increments was applied by the respondent- Department. This bunching of 3 increments has been counted in the basic pay scale and after the scale had run to its full, then placement scale was taken into consideration. Case of the petitioners is that bunching should take place in the placement scale but not in the basic pay scale, whereas the State of Punjab has uniformly adopted a procedure that bunching is to be done first in the basic pay scale and thereafter conversion is to be applied as per the chart given on 1.1.1986. This Court interpreted this issue in Dr.Rameshwar Chander's case (supra) wherein the petitioners who were working as Senior Medical Officers were drawing similar salary in the basic pay scale and after completion of 18 years of service, they were also given the same placement scale. Therefore, the order passed in Dr.Rameshwar Chander's case (supra) for facility of reference is reproduced below:- “The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that Executive Instructions dated April 17, 2000 (Annexure P- 2) and letter dated February 15, 2002 (Annexure P-6) be CWP No.11218 of 2003 [3] quashed and respondents be directed not to reduce the monthly emoluments drawn by the petitioners. Petitioners were working as Senior Medical Officers in the Health Department of Government of Punjab. Their initial pay scale was of Rs.3000-4500. However, they were drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5300 after they had completed 18 years of service. Case of the petitioners is that after revision of pay-scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 they were to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.14300-18150 as they have completed 14 years of total regular service in the entry scale whereas the case of the respondents is that for fixing the salary, those persons, whose salary was fixed at Rs.3700-5300, were first to be fixed in the initial revised scale of Rs.12000- 15500 and thereafter by granting the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme, their pay is to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.14300-18150. It is stated that wrongly the basic pay of the petitioners was fixed at Rs.17,700/- on 1.1.1998 instead of Rs.17546/-. The rationale adopted by the Department to fix the salary of the petitioners is just and is according to functional chart. A uniform procedure has been adopted qua all the employees. The interpretation, as projected by the petitioners that their pay should be fixed according to their understanding cannot be accepted. Petitioners' prayer that they should be placed in the scale of Rs.14300-18150 is liable to be rejected. The reasoning given by the Department that first petitioners are to be placed in the scale of Rs.12000-15500 and thereafter by giving the benefit of assured career progression scheme, their pay is to be fixed in the scale of Rs.14300-18150 is just and proper. Hence, the claim of the petitioners cannot be entertained. The second prayer made in the present petition is that if the Department has wrongly fixed the pay scale of the petitioners initially at Rs.17700/-, and actually the petitioners have also drawn the same, no recovery be made from them in view of the ratio of law rendered in a Full Bench of this Court reported as Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana CWP No.11218 of 2003 [4] and others, 2009(3) SCT 333. It is held in Budh Ram's case (supra) that if there is no deception, misrepresentation on the part of the employee, no recovery can be effected from him of the amount paid in excess. There is merit in this contention. It was held by Full Bench as under:- “10. ........ Having induced that belief in the employee and made him change his position and arrange his affairs in a manner that he would not otherwise have done, it would be unfair, inequitable and harsh for the Government to direct recovery of the excess amount simply because on a true and correct interpretation of the rules, such a benefit was not due .........” Mr. Kalra states that the recovery of the excess amount has been made from the petitioners. He submits that the same be ordered to be refunded to the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition is partly accepted. The amount, if recovered, be refunded to the petitioners. However, there will be no order as to costs.” This Court is of the view that case of the petitioners is covered by the interpretation given in Dr.Rameshwar Chander's case (supra). Hence, the procedure adopted by the respondent-Department in re-fixation of the salary calls for no interference. However, as held in that case, no recovery shall be effected from the petitioners. Therefore, the present writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) September 15, 2010. JUDGE RC