An employee, even if a promotee, is entitled to the 3rd ACP and step up of pay equivalent to the junior as per the judgment in Civil Appeal No.3250 of 2006. Recovery from a retiring employee is impermissible as per State of Punjab & Others vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc (2014) 8 SCC 883.

JUDGMENT :

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.

1. In the present writ petition, the grievance which is being raised by the petitioner is against order dated 11.12.2014 (Annexure P-9) by which, the benefit of 3rd ACP granted to the petitioner, has been withdrawn. Further challenge is also to the order dated 12.01.2015 (Annexure P-10) vide which the pay of the petitioner has been refixed and recovery amounting to Rs.32,229/- has been made, being contrary to the law.

2. Further prayer of the petitioner is to step up the pay of the petitioner equivalent to his junior Sh. Wazir Singh, who was getting higher pay then the petitioner, which is impermissible keeping in view the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3250 of 2006 titled as Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana and others Vs. Ram Sarup Ganda and others, decided on 02.08.2006, read with the instructions dated 27.01.2015 issued by the Government of Haryana.

3. The facts as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was recruited on the post of Dak Runner on 17.12.1976. He was further promoted as a Daftri w.e.f. 23.01.1980 and thereafter, as a Clerk on 24.11.1982. On the basis of seniority-cum-merit, petitioner was further promoted as Sub Divisional Clerk on 24.03.2011 and ultimately, while working on the said post, petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2015. While the petitioner was in service, respondents passed an order on 11.12.2014 by which, the benefits of 3rd ACP granted to the petitioner on 11.01.2013, w.e.f. 01.12.2012 was withdrawn and consequent upon the withdrawal of the grant of the benefit of 3rd ACP, the pay of the petitioner was refixed by the respondents on 12.01.2015 and after the refixing the salary, the respondents found that the petitioner was paid an excess amount of Rs.32,229/-, which was recovered from the petitioner in installments.

4. The grievance which is being raised by the petitioner is that the benefit of 3rd ACP was wrongly withdrawn from the petitioner and his pay was wrongly fixed and the consequent recovery of the amount of Rs.32,229/-, recovered from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, is liable to be refunded.

5. The alternative prayer of the petitioner is that even if the petitioner was not found entitled for the benefit of 3rd ACP, petitioner was entitled for the step up of his pay equivalent to his junior Sh. Wazir Singh as the senior employee cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior employee.

6. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply and have controverted the claim as being raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition. In the reply, the respondents have stated that an employee can only get two upgradations during his service career, which had already been extended to the petitioner prior to extending the benefit of 3rd ACP and therefore, the grant of 3rd ACP to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.12.2012 was contrary to the rules governing the service and therefore, the same was rightly withdrawn and the recovery of the excess amount was made from the salary of the petitioner from the month of January, 2015 and February, 2015 and not from the retiral benefits as being alleged by the petitioner. With regard to the claim of the petitioner for stepping up of his pay with that of his junior Sh. Wazir Singh, the respondents have stated that Sh. Wazir Singh was getting higher pay being a direct recrutee on the post of Clerk whereas the petitioner who was a promottee, cannot equate him with that of Sh. Wazir Singh in order to claim the step up of pay. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that at the time of retirement, petitioner was getting a higher salary than Sh. Wazir Singh as due to imposition of a punishment, increment of Sh. Wazir Singh were withheld.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

8. Though, in the writ petition, petitioner is challenging the or