The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of employees from recovery of excess pay, based on principles such as the nature of service, period of excess payment, and the directions issued by the court.

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.

1. The members of the petitioner-Union seek the quashing of the order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure P-3) whereby, recovery of excess pay was ordered to be effected w.e.f 11.09.2002. The same had been granted to various employees (retirees as well as in service) working on the Ranjit Sagar Dam and Shahpur Kandi Dam projects in the scale of Rs. 1200-2100 as per para No. 26.4 and 26.9 of Chapter 26 of 3rd Pay Commission. The relief claimed is on the basis of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana, , 2009 (3) SCT 333 and in consonance with the order dated 14.09.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed in CWP No. 17856 of 2000, State of Punjab and others v. Ranjit Sagar Dam Mazdoor Union and others.

2. The issue involved in the present case is whether the respondent-authorities are entitled to recover the above said amount as a consequential result of the litigation which has been finalized inter se the parties by the Division Bench on 27.03.2009 and which was upheld on 04.09.2009 by the Apex Court and whether the petitioners are similarly situated to another set of employees who were granted the protection on 14.09.2011.

3. For deciding the issue in question, facts will necessarily have to be gone into in detail.

4. The members of the petitioner-union are mainly mechanics, drivers and masons and had raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court claiming the pay scale of that of Technician Grade-III i.e. Rs. 1200-2100 being ITI diploma holders and having completed 3 years of service. The said claim was on the basis of paras 26.4 and 26.9 of Chapter 26 of the report of the 3rd Pay Commission and the circulars dated 02.08.1995 and 14.05.1996 issued by the Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam itself. After the award was passed by the Labour Court, the Chief Engineer constituted a Committee regarding the implementation of Chapter 26. It was found that the recommendations were applicable only for future appointment/promotions and it was contrary to the instructions contained in Chapter 26. Accordingly, the instructions issued from time to time for implementation of the 3rd Pay Commission report were withdrawn and the employees' pay was refixed. Resultantly, the said action was challenged before this Court by the petitioner-union in a bunch of cases, the lead case of which was CWP No. 1067 of 2003 decided on 27.03.2009 (Annexure P-1). The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the entire basis of the award was the circulars issued by the Chief Engineer and if the same had been withdrawn, the same was permissible. However, it would not operate retrospectively and the benefits granted could not be withdrawn. However, the employer was given the right to refix the pay from a prospective date. Accordingly, the writ petition was partly allowed by declaring that prior to the decision of the Committee, refixation was illegal and void. It was further held that where stay had been granted in some of the petitions, the respondents were at liberty to take appropriate decision in respect of the recovery of the amount to avoid hardship and undue financial burden at this stage. The relevant part of the order dated 27.03.2009 read thus:-

"We are of the opinion that the decision of the Committee (Annexure P-10), cannot operate retrospectively so as to permit the respondents to withdraw the benefits given to the employees in terms of the Awards of the Labour Court. However, the second part is whether the employer is within the right to refix the pay from a prospective date. The decision cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any manner. The employer has a right to fix the emoluments payable to its employees and, therefore, the decision to refix the emoluments payable to its employees, cannot be said to be illegal only for the reason that subsequent decision has reduced the pay scale granted to the employees earlier.

In view of the said fact, we partly allow the present writ pet