High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/18069/2014allowed

Vijay Kumari v. Punjab Water Resources Management & ANR

2026-04-20Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar15 pages

!"#$

$ "%$&"$'#($

&)*

$ $ & !

($$+(*,-. $ $%.+(*, $.)$

$ $#*$/ !"0+(*,$ $ (#/'./.+/$(*, $.$)*

2.)$-$).%0*"*$($034 ."5*$."-$."$ 3 +$ .$))$)$-$+$*$$*$+$ 6".'$*$7 8 9**

(:"$*$*$ 7 84**

(:"$9+ .)$+-.$% .*'$)0#.)$..'.$) 0 /$0$;3<"$(.,%0$*$.$$$#* $,$ .%$*$*$#.$0,.#=*0$6".'

##**

(:"$+-.$% .$ . )$ . % .'* $ .$ $$# " #$)$."*'#**

9)*4

* 4

(:"$4* +%')0 00'0+ $%$$ +#0**""0+*$$ .0-0**- % .>?%0/")$#"$

!"# $% &'

(:"$*"$.$*$'.$)*$000$$0 %.)$+0"*''$" +0,.#$.-. .%.0) "00 *$-% .)$+-." $*"$$,$ +0'-.$@ A)$"#

B$*"0$.)$+ +*.. )$-00 ))*0$;9 44*.% .$-.0"%/2"%-00$)$B#* - ! "

# $% & & ' >$ $,-$$'"0$C*-

,*$*$**

(:"$+-..-"%6"0 #**+*.-'$* $'"0$C-

4 ,*$*$**

(:"$ )"%0$ $$*)$#*)0#,$" )$### 2.)$-'$*)0#/$ 0$; . ) 0 &

,* $*$ ** 4

(:"$ 9 * .$$ <"$ ( ,* $*$ **

+$*-.$*$**

9+-..-"$.$#** ,*$*$**

(:"$ 2.$)*$)$ "*,$ 09

,*0$**

*$%0$# (:"$8*)$-)0*/$ 7 -.$/# $.!"#$/.$#-)0*/$ 7 9% '' .$ $ $# . * .$ $'"0$ ))#

2.$-%$# 6"$$-.$'$*. )$)* $ 0 (:"$ 8 2. E$* $$ . $)*$)$+,*'*#7 9

))$,*.$ 00$;3/$0$;3<"$(+-..-"*,*0$ 7

% $0 '")."*'#>?%0/")$# "$+-.$% .)$*$.$#)0 -$'$* %$ $#.*.$0*.))# 2. )$-00-*%$ $# 9 44+*- )0*/$ 7 */# $.!"#$/.$#-)0* /$ 7 9 2.*$ 0-0C**$"0*,*0$ **

(:"$ (''$,*% .#+/# $. !"#$ * .$ #)0 0* 4

%$ . "$+ ;'6".'.$ 0**

(:"$ 2. $*-$)-)$00 00-*$$0 '")."*'# )*% ."$$ (

&&,!#-."'

+-.$-.0*.*.$,&

% "**$#))?$ .*$ &0-0 )0*")."*'#$*$*% .():"$ ) / (

'! #$% 2& 2.-$ )0*% /# $.!"#$/.$#-*)*$*'0 $#.0*0-*$)*$)$-*$* $#"0 . $ . #)0 $. ;)' ,- . %$,#*% ."$.$ ($*'0 +:#.?#- '$*.$)*$)$*.*"0% ."$-.0 *)'.-$)4

* 4

9 (:"$4* +0*% .)$*.$ 2. )$$$*$#$,9 9")'.' ")$" (:"$

(*#*0 +.$-.00'#*4

-. $'$* . $*$ $'"0$C . )$ F, . $.!"#$/.$#*.$.,,$$* '$,% #;' $)$$'$*'.$'"0$C.)$ E #$)$'.$*"*'#+.$)*0 -.*$- .%*.$,%"0,0 "00*.)$? $'"0$C $#

4 '$* ,* $*$ **

+ 0."'..*$*$-,$"*$.00' 2.)$- -$'0 '*$ -

.,$ 0

4 + -." $*' $ ))$" .$'

2. )$ "%#* % **

9 . $*,$ 0 2.$)*$)$$#. *$"*% ."$

$34 &&&!

#+."**$$$#"0.$ 0**

+-...)$-)0*/$ 7 *$. !"#$/.$#-)0*/$ 7 9+-.$.$-*)" $'$*'.,$ 0)$)$*

+-..- ,$%*% .#)0 2.)$-)0*/$

7 $# "' .$ $, $# . * $'"0$C

(".+-.""' .-"$)$,*' ))$" .$'+.#)"'*.''.)$? $'"0$C-

4 +"%0. 0- 2. )$.$'$*."%#**0*$)$ G"$.$+ $.$$#.)$-."**'.$)$ .%0*% .)$+$)*7 .,-"*. 0$ 0,*#)"'*$*$**

(:"$+ -.$% .)$.%'*$ -

.%..'.$ 0+.$)* $)$ ., 0 )* . #)"'* $*$ **

+ -.$% .*'$%)0#/$0$;* <"$(.0%))**.#.%'$*

.)% $;'3"'.$$,$#

6"0 +.) .)$.%$*"*$ .$$$#*$,$ .%$*$*$#.) #.$0, .# *$%0 $# #)"'* $*$ **

(:"$ * 9 2. #)"'* . $)* $)$.''.$ .)$$.$$$# % #$)$' . "*'# $*$* % . "$

$34 254&&& !

#+ )0 00'0 * $%$$ .$,.)$$'"0$C*-

,*$*$**

+-..-,$.00'*% . #)0 + . # "0* ., % #** . '$% #)0#'.$*$"*% ."$

$34 254&&&!

2.0$*"0$.)$"$.$$0*")&"0

+.)$5H."%,0/$,&"0+ 0"#55*"%# .$.)"$)0"0,$ #0"#$.)$*

#. )$*' . * $$# . I, F#)0 + . )$.**#*0 $$*9 9+".+.0'.&"0

+.) $.0 #."*.$0,%.#$;

$*$#'.$$.) 2.$)*.,0 $,00*% *.)&"0

%".0,0*.0-0* *-

!"#$%&' (:"$-.$+& +$"0 $'$*'.$$.#0"#$.0#.)$$ .$$#-$0*")*"$.$$0*")."*'#. $*E.

(/ ) / (

$34 ''4

) / (

$34 5',&4

"+ 0$* "0 $ . $)*$)$ "%#.$,$ :) #.%#*$#.)$ $# . $" "* % . )$# G

+-..)$,*$$,$ + +*"-$': ) *-$'0 )*%%$,$*$#.$* $" G"$.$+.)$-"00 -$.-$)0* % $.!"#$/.$#*.-')$ 4

2.B$())00*% .)$'.$*$ )*% .$*E.-*#*% .,E. 9

)*B( (:"$&3 (".+.$ *)".)$).*$#'$ 0 .$'"0$ ))#.%;*$*.)$**. ))#)$$.$'"0$))# 2.$)*$)$ -%"*#)0#.

#"*'#*. #)"'*0 $ 6".** 2.

**.**$:"-..)$?$ 0$;* 0 "$.$)0#/$0$;3<"$(."*'# ."$

#+.)00 **.'$ %*.$,-$*$ .)$+". #)0 .$+ $ $: $ 0$; * "$.$ )0#/$0$;3<"$(+.:) #$0$)* .)$.%$,$*$#.$$#*"+ 0, .#*..)$)0%0%*#* . )$.)*.*$*$*$34 254&&&

$34 &5'4

*.0.00'*."*'#$*$*% , E.604

+.%00-*.00'.-.*$-0 .0%.%."*'# $,$+. )$.0"%#**,..$)* $)$-"0*%"00 0* ".$,$$#.$ $$#*"++.$*-$) $***' .$+"..#)"'*$*$$,0*0-*.$:'$"* $.)$.00'.#

5.,.$*0$*"0$.)$*.,)$"* .$$*-..$%0 It transpires that the petitioner had initially joined as a Clerk on 23.12.1977 on ad hoc basis in the erstwhile Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Limited (now Punjab Water Resources

Management & Development Corporation Limited). Her services were regularized on 26.10.1982 vide order dated 19.04.1983. Thereafter, in partial modification of the said order, the petitioner was allowed regularization w.e.f. 01.02.1978 vide order dated 20.09.1991. Admittedly, the aforesaid order of her regularization was never assailed either by Darshana Kumari Sharma or any other employee by filing any representation. Further, the aforementioned order was not the subject matter of the writ petition filed by Darshana Kumari Sharma. She along with eleven other employees had filed CWP-1267-1999 before this Court seeking quashing of the seniority list issued by the respondent-Corporation on 14.01.1999 (Annexure P-6). 5.

Perusal of the judgments in CWP-1267-1999 and CWP-97182000 dated 26.09.2013 (Annexures P-7 and P-8) clearly indicates that this Court has specifically observed that once the respondent has determined the seniority, and in case the petitioner has any claim for promotion prior to the private respondent, the respondents would naturally pass an order to that effect. Further, directions were issued to the respondent-Corporation to formulate the seniority of the employees afresh, keeping in view the observations made by this Court. As such, there is no occasion for the respondent-Corporation to have revisited the order dated 20.09.1991 (Annexure P-2), vide which the regularization of the petitioner was made w.e.f. 01.02.1978. The issue before this Court in Darshana Kumari CWP-1267-1999 (supra) was whether the ad hoc service rendered by an

employee can be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority. Moreover, the respondent-Corporation is bound to follow the mandate of Rule 9.4, Chapter IX of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, which is reproduced as under:- "...9.4. Stages for the completion of pension papers:-(1) The Head of Office shall divide the period of preparatory work of two years referred to in rule 9.3 in the following three stages:- (a) First Stage-Verification of service:- (i) The Head of Office shall go through the service book of the Government employee and satisfy himself as to whether the certificates of verification for the entire service are recorded therein.

(ii) In respect of the unverified portion or portions of service, he shall arrange to verify the portion or portions of such service, as the case may be, with reference to pay bills, acquittance rolls or other relevant records and shall record necessary certificates in the service book.

(iii) If the service for any period is not capable of being verified in the manner specified in sub-clauses (i) and (ii), that period of service having been rendered by the Government employee in another office or Department, a reference shall be made to the Head of Office in which the Government employee is shown to have served during that period for the purpose of verification.

(iv) If any portion of service rendered by a Government employee is not capable of being verified in the manner specified in sub-clauses (i) and (iii), the Government employee shall be asked to file an affidavit on a plain paper to the effect that he had actually rendered service during that period. He shall also be asked to produce all relevant

documents and furnish all information which is in his power to produce or furnish in support of such declaration. (v) The Head of Office shall after taking into consideration the facts mentioned in the affidavit and the documents produced and the information furnished in support thereof, admit the portion of service referred to in sub-clause (iv) having been rendered for the purpose of calculating the pension of the Government employee.

(b) Second stage-Making good omissions in the service book:- (i) The Head of Office while scrutinising the certificates of verification of service, shall also identify if there are any other omissions, imperfections or deficiencies which have a direct bearing on the determination of emoluments and the service qualifying for pension.

(ii) Every effort shall be made to complete the verification of service in the manner specified in clause (a) and to make good omissions, imperfections or deficiencies referred to in sub-clause (i). Any omission, imperfection or deficiency including the portion of service shown as unverified in the service book which it has not been possible to verify in the manner specified in clause (a) shall be ignored and service qualifying for pension shall be determined on the basis of the entries in the service book.

(iii) Calculation of Average emoluments.-For the purpose of calculation of average emoluments, the Head of Office shall verify from the service book, the correctness of the emoluments drawn during the last ten months of service. In order to ensure that the emoluments during the last ten months of service have been correctly shown in the service book, the Head of Office may verify the correctness of emoluments for the period of twenty-four months preceding the date of retirement of a Government employee, and not for any period prior to that date.

(c) Third Stage-Obtaining of Form Pen. 15 by the Head of Office:- The Head of Office shall obtain the necessary particulars in Form Pen. 15 from the Government employee eight months before the date of his retirement.

(2) Action under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule

(1) shall be completed eight months prior to the date of retirement of the Government employee."

5.2 Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Prmukh Sachiv, Irrigation Department & Ors., reported as 2014 (3) SCT 98, has observed as under:- ".....5. It had been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant employee that the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court is incorrect for the reason that the High Court did not consider the G.O. dated 16.1.2007 bearing No.S-3-35/10-07- 101(6)/2005 which reads as under:

"[1]. Pension Fixation Authority shall inquire into emoluments of only last 10 months prior to retirement and for that examine the records of only two years prior thereto i.e. only the records of 34 months would be examined for the purpose of grant of pension, as has been provided in the aforesaid Government order dated 13.12.1977. [2]. Pension Allowing Authority shall not be entitled to correct the mistake in determining the pay during service tenure beyond the period prescribed in para (1) above. Mistakes in pay determination of an employee can be effectively removed through the process of general inquiry/audit only when the employee is still in service."

6. It had been submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant had retired on 31st December, 2003 and

somewhere in the month of March, 2005 it was revealed that a mistake had been committed while fixing pay of the appellant in 1986. It had been further submitted that by virtue of the aforestated G.O. dated 16th January, 2007, the mistake committed in pay fixation beyond period of 34 months prior to retirement of the appellant could not have been taken into account by the respondent employer and therefore, neither any recovery could have been sought by the respondents nor there could have been any reduction in the pension on the basis of reduction of salary.

7. Upon perusal of the aforestated G.O. and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it is not in dispute that the appellant had retired on 31st December, 2003 and at the time of his retirement his salary was Rs.11,625/- and on the basis of the said salary his pension had been fixed as Rs.9000/-. Admittedly, if any mistake had been committed in pay fixation, the mistake had been committed in 1986, i.e. much prior to the retirement of the appellant and therefore, by virtue of the aforestated G.O. dated 16th January, 2007, neither any salary paid by mistake to the appellant could have been recovered nor pension of the appellant could have been reduced.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent employer could not deny any of the facts stated hereinabove.

9. In the aforestated circumstances, the High Court was not correct while permitting the respondent authorities to reduce the pension payable to the appellant by not setting aside the order whereby excess amount of salary paid to the appellant was sought to be recovered.

10. For the aforestated reasons, we quash the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court and direct the respondents not to recover any amount of salary which had been paid to the appellant in pursuance of some mistake committed in pay fixation in 1986. The amount of pension shall also not be reduced and the appellant shall be paid

pension as fixed earlier at the time of his retirement. It is pertinent to note that the Government had framed such a policy under its G.O. dated 16th January, 2007 and therefore, the respondent authorities could not have taken a different view in the matter of re-fixing pension of the appellant.

11. The submission made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the appellant would be getting more amount than what he was entitled to cannot be accepted in view of the policy laid down by the Government in G.O. dated 16th January, 2007. If the Government feels that mistakes are committed very often, it would be open to the Government to change its policy but as far as the G.O. dated 16th January, 2007 is in force, the respondent-employer could not have passed any order for recovery of the excess salary paid to the appellant or for reducing pension of the appellant.

12. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment as well as the order dated 23.03.2005 whereby salary of the appellant was re-fixed and order dated 23.04.2005 whereby recovery of excess amount of Rs.99,522/- was ordered to be recovered from the appellant. The appellant shall be paid pension which had been determined at the time of his retirement, i.e. immediately after 31st December, 2003. The appeal is disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs." 6.

As such, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the respondent-Corporation has travelled beyond the directions issued by this Court in Darshana Kumari and others CWP-1267-1999 (supra), and also beyond the provisions contained in Rule 9.4. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in Sarabjit Kaur (supra) and Sampuran Singh (supra). As such, the recovery of excess

salary paid due to petitioner, after her retirement is impermissible as such action violates the mandate of the Rule 9.4(iii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 21.07.2014 (Annexure P-12 and P-13) are quashed and set aside. Further, the respondents are directed to re-fix the retiral dues of the plaintiff accordingly by reckoning the date of regularization 01.02.1978 with all consequential benefits and refund the recovered amount along with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery, till its actual realization. The entire exercise shall be completed expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

*'))0 + +.000**)*

!""#!"!$

( ..$);'3$* J37 ..$&)$%0 J37