Fakir Singh vs State of Punjab

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Petitioners challenge the order dated 29.11.1991 (Annexure P-1), to the effect that their work charge service be counted for the purpose of completion of 8 and 18 years of service, for grant of benefit of proficiency step-up.

Notice of motion was issued and reduction of salary of the petitioners was stayed. Respondents filed their written statement. The matter was admitted for regular hearing. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that most of the petitioners have retired from service, after attaining the age of superannuation. There was no allegation of misrepresentation against the petitioners. Referring to the facts and figures pointed out in para 2 of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were rightly granted the benefit of proficiency step-up and it would be unjust on the part of respondent-State to withdraw the same after a long period. Finally, he prays for allowing the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, disputes the factual aspect of the statement of learned counsel for petitioners and submits that out of fourteen, only nine petitioners have retired and five are still serving. Out of five serving petitioners, three are due for retirement in the year 2015 and two are due for retirement in the year 2018. He also submits that Annexure P-1 dated 29.11.1991, placed on record by the petitioners, was not complete copy of the document and the material word "not" was missing therein. He next submits that after thorough examination of the matter, the State, in its wisdom, has rightly decided that work charge service will not be counted for the purpose of completion of 8 and 18 years of service, for grant of benefit of proficiency step-up. Since, learned counsel for the petitioners have not argued on the validity of Annexure P-1, the writ petition was bound to fail and the same may be dismissed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition deserves to be partly allowed, for the following more than one reasons.

It is a matter of record and not in dispute that petitioners were granted the benefit of proficiency step up on completion of their 8 years of service including their work charge service. The details in this regard read as under:-

During the pendency of the present writ petition, nine petitioners have retired from service. So far as the right of the State for rectifying its mistake is concerned, the said right has been duly recognised by this Court as well as the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a number of cases. However, the sole issue survives for consideration in the present case is whether the recovery can be effected from the petitioners. This issue precisely fell for consideration of the Hon''ble Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, . The Hon''ble Full Bench laid down the law that wherever no misrepresentation is alleged against an employee, no recovery will be effected and the rectification of the mistake shall be only prospective.

Similarly, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, has considered the similar proposition of law, while recognising the right of State to rectify the mistake so as to withdraw the benefit erroneously granted to the employee, observed that recovery from the retirees or the employees, who were on the verge of retirement, may not be effected.

Reverting back to the facts of the present case and respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon''ble Full Bench of this Court as well as by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, it is unhesitatingly held that the respondent-State shall be at liberty to rectify its mistake but the orders shall operate only prospectively, so far as the recoveries are concerned. The case of nine petitioners, who have already retired from service, shall be squarely covered in their favour vide judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chandi Ram Uniyal''s case (supra). However, five petitioners, who are still in service, would be at different footing. They shall not be entitled for the benefit of proficiency step up for their future service. However, it is made clear that recovery from the serving petitioners shall also be not ordered in view of law laid down by the Hon''ble Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram''s case (supra).

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, the instant writ petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms and the same is disposed of, accordingly.