Mathura Dass Jain and Others vs The State of Punjab and Others

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—The petitioners have prayed for quashing the letter dated 20.12.1988 vide which the pay of the petitioners in the officiating capacity as Headmaster has been reduced.

All the petitioners in this writ petition were working as Lecturers in the substantive/officiating capacity. They were promoted as Officiating Headmasters prior to 1.1.1978. The petitioners have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on different dates during the year 1987-89.

The State of Punjab notified the Rules called the ''Punjab Civil Services (Revised Scales of Pay) Rules, 1979'' which came into force with effect from 1.1.1978. As per sub-rule 2 of Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules if the pay fixed in the higher officiating post was equal to or lower than the pay as fixed in the substantive post then the officiating pay was to be re- fixed at the stage next above the substantive pay or the lower officiating pay as the case may be. As all the petitioners had already reached the maximum of the lower pay scale, therefore, on the officiating post of Headmaster, they were granted one extra increment. This extra increment was sought to be recovered vide orders Annexures P4 and P5 passed by the Punjab Government. Learned Counsel submits that as all the petitioners have already retired from service during the years 1987-89 i.e. more than 20 years ago, therefore, in view of the decision in Budh Ram v. State of Haryana 2009 (3) S.C.T. 333 no recovery can be made from the petitioners. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel that as the petitioners have remained retired for more than two decades, therefore, even their pay cannot be re- fixed.

Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been averred that as the substantive post of the petitioners was Headmaster and they were officiating as Lecturers and as a Lecturer would be promoted to the post of Headmaster, therefore for the purpose of fixation of pay the substantive pay of a Master would be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixation of pay as a Headmaster.

I have heard the counsel for the parties at length.

In case, the pay of the petitioners is in the pay scale of a Master then on promotion, they would draw lesser pay than an officiating Lecturer, on which post the petitioners were already working. Thus, an anomaly would be created as even while working on an officiating post of a Headmaster, the petitioners would draw lesser pay what they were already drawing prior to their promotion. In view of the above, the orders Annexure P4 and P5 cannot be sustained. No recovery can be effected from the petitioners in view of the decision in Budh Ram''s case (supra).

Accordingly, I allow the writ petition and quash Annexures P4 and P5. The petitioners shall continue to draw the pay and pensionary benefits which they were drawing on the date of their superannuation.