KULDIP SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10/12.9.2014 (Annexure-P-10), passed by respondent No.2 and further a writ of mandamus for allowing the petitioner to change the date of option with effect from 1.2.1979, instead of 8.2.1978. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought for directing respondents to refund the recovery of Rs.1,40,118/-, effected from the payment of gratuity of the petitioner.

2. The short controversy is that the petitioner was working as a Clerk in the Department of Education under the Government of Punjab. On 8.2.1978, there was a general strike by the Punjab Government employees. Apparently, in order to reward the employees (non-gazetted employees), who did not participate in the strike, the Government of Punjab had decided to grant a special increment to those employees with effect from 8.2.1978. In the meanwhile, on account of the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Scales of Pay) Rules, 1979, the pay scales of the Punjab Government employees were revised with effect from 1.1.1978. The pay of the petitioner was accordingly fixed, vide order dated 18.11.1981 (Annexure-P-6), taking that she had opted for revised pay scales with effect from 8.2.1978. The petitioner accordingly continued to draw the salary in accordance with the revised pay scales. The petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service as Assistant Registrar (Examination) on 31.10.2005. Apparently, when the pension case of the petitioner was being processed, some anomaly came to the notice of the authorities. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 1.8.2006 (Annexure-P-7) was issued, stating that the option given by the petitioner (Assistant Registrar, Examination) for fixation of her pay with effect from 8.2.1978, is not correct. It was noticed that the State Government has given a special increment to those Government employees (non-gazetted employees), who did not participate in the strike on 8.2.1978. The said special increment cannot be treated a normal increment. Therefore, her pay is liable to be fixed from 1.1.1978, instead of 8.2.1978. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the said notice before this Court by way of filing CWP No. 10236 of 2006, titled as Darshani Devi Versus The State of Punjab and others, (Annexure-P-8 Colly.) with a prayer to release the retiral benefits and objecting to refixation of her pay. The said writ petition was connected with another CWP No. 15744 of 2005, titled as Karnail Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, (Annexure-P-8 Colly.). Both the writ petitions were disposed of on 23.4.2014, giving liberty to the State to proceed in accordance with the statement made by the learned State counsel.

3. In view of the matter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.5.2014 (Annexure-P-9) to respondents. After considering the same, respondents passed the impugned order dated 10/12.9.2014 (Annexure-P-10), vide which her claim was rejected, stating that her pay has now been rightly fixed and excess amount of Rs. 1,40,118/-, already recovered from the petitioner, was correctly recovered from her.

4. In the reply, the State has taken the stand that the pay of the petitioner has been rightly fixed on 18.3.1980, as per the option given by the petitioner, in which the revised pay scales became effective with effect from 1.1.1978. Thereafter, the petitioner gave her second option for revised pay scales with effect from 8.2.1978. It is stated that she got to manage her pay scales fixed with effect from 8.2.1978. She was not entitled to give the second option of revised pay scales with effect from 8.2.1978. Therefore, the pay of the petitioner has been rightly re-fixed and recovery was rightly ordered.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also carefully gone through the file.

6. It comes out that the new p