Baldev Raj Devgan and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—The Petitioners were posted within 16 Kms of International border with Pakistan and earlier to 1st September, 1988, were granted compensatory allowance. Vide government decision dated 30th August, 1988, copy Annexure P2, which came into force with effect from 1st September, 1988, the compensatory allowance payable to the employees serving within 16 Kms of International border was discontinued. However, to certain categories of employees, the house rent allowance was allowed and to the remaining, rural area allowance was allowed. Here, we are concerned with the discontinuation of the compensatory allowance to the employees serving within 16 Kms of International border.

The Petitioners earlier filed C.W.P. No. 8534 of 1988 to challenge Annexure P2 by which compensatory allowance payable to them was discontinued; and they got interim order and they continue to receive the compensatory allowance till the decision of that writ petition. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed on 19th December, 1989. We are informed that the Petitioners'' S.I,.P. filed before the Supreme Court, was also dismissed but no order has been placed before us.

After the dismissal of the writ petition, the State Government started making recovery of the amount, which was paid to the Petitioners with effect from 1st September, 1988 in pursuance of the stay order granted by this Court. This Court while dismissing writ petitions had held that the Petitioners were not entitled to compensatory allowance after 30th August, 1988 and the Government could withdraw the concession earlier given to the Petitioners.

When recovery was sought to be effected, the Petitioners again came to this Court in writ petitions which are being disposed of by this order. The earlier decision between the parties would operate as res-judicata and regarding those who have not come to the Court earlier, we follow the same as binding precedent. Once that is so, there is obviously no merit in the writ petitions and the Petitioners are bound to refund the amount to which they were not entitled and had received in pursuance of the stay order granted in their favour.

The only point that remains for consideration is how much deduction should be made from the salaries of the Petitioners per month to make recovery. According to Petitioners a huge amount is sought to be deducted from their salaries in accordance with the provisions of Section 60 of the CPC in the case of salaried persons, out of the monthly salary recovery can be made of an amount after leaving first Rs. 400/-, and from the balance only l/3rd can be recovered. On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that it would be just and equitable to direct the State to make recovery from the Petitioners in installments, each of which shall not exceed the amount equal to, to be calculated in the manner indicated above, that is, out of the monthly salary, after leaving first Rs. 400/-, from the balance, l/3rd would be deducted/recovered.

With this order and directions, the writ petition Nos. 10644, 11929, 11284, 10989, 11839, 12546. 11285, 12040, 2467, 3943, 5912, 12547 and 11899 of 1990 are dismissed with no order as to costs.