K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—The State is aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge which declined to sustain the re-fixation of pay revision of the petitioner, effected while in service; attempted to be modified after retirement.

2. The learned Single Judge refused to accept the contention raised by the State Government that as on 01.01.1996 there were two types of posts of Electrician; one carrying a lesser pay scale than the other. The writ petitioner who was alleged to be entitled only to the lower scale of pay, was inadvertently fixed at a higher pay scale resulting in the revision also being carried out in the higher pay scale; argued the State. It was found in the impugned order that the State Government did not produce any material to show that the writ petitioner was initially appointed in the lower pay scale; while Annexure-1 relied on by the writ petitioner was an extract of the Service Register clearly indicating that he was appointed in the higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800 which was revised as Rs. 4000-6000. Relying on the Service Register, the learned Single Judge set aside the re-fixation and rejected the contention of the State that there were two establishments within the organization; the work charged establishment and the regular establishment.

3. The learned Government Advocate after narrating the facts regarding the appointment and promotion, points out that the petitioner was first appointed in the work charged establishment. The work charged employees were taken into regular establishment, but their pay scales in the work charged establishment was preserved. In fixing the pay scale of the petitioner in the regular establishment an inadvertent omission occurred and it was fixed in the same scale of pay as that available to the regularly employed Electricians. This was an anomaly which was rectified. There is no recovery of pay ordered by the Government and there would be only prospective revision of pension, making the modified pay fixation notional; so as to re-compute the last paid salary for the purpose of pension alone.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, however, contended that he was continued in the regular pay scale on being taken into the regular establishment. There cannot be two pay scales for persons in the same establishment carrying on similar duties and charged with identical obligations & responsibilities. The re-fixation was also carried out after his retirement.

5. The petitioner’s submission that the re-fixation was done after retirement is not correct since the original order modifying the fixation was dated 07.05.2010 which was challenged in CWJC No. 10325 of 2012. Therein not only was the fixation of revision of pay in the post of Electrician modified from Rs. 4000-6000 to Rs. 3050-4590, recovery was also ordered. The Government’s contention that there was no recovery ordered; is also not correct since initially it was so ordered. While setting aside the recovery relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, the learned Single by decision dated 08.03.2019 in CWJC No. 10325 of 2012 directed reconsideration of the re-fixation made, since there was no clarity as to the contention regarding work charged and regular establishment and how the petitioner who was in the work charged establishment was fixed with the higher pay scale. The fresh consideration was made by the impugned order in the year 2019, since the earlier writ petition was disposed of on 08.03.2019; which was after the retirement of the appellant/petitioner.

6. Admittedly, the appellant was appointed in the work charged establishment as a Fuse-Man on 12.05.1970 and he was promoted as an Assistant Armature Winder and then Armature Winder. He was also granted time bound promotion in the post of Armature Winder. Subsequently, by Annexure-A dated 22.10.1984, produced in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of t