The central legal point established in the judgment is the impermissibility of recovery in certain situations, such as from retired employees and employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service, as discussed in the State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih case.

JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral) - Vide this common order and judgment, bunch of above-mentioned two writ petitions is being disposed of, since not only the facts are similar but the law points and the issues raised therein are also common. For brevity, recitals are taken from CWP-5887-2015.

2. Petition herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing impugned order/ letter dated 21.11.2014 (Annexure P-3) whereby respondent-Department decided to withdraw the benefit of Ist Higher Standard Pay Scale granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1994 by re-fixing his pay retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.1994 onwards and effecting recovery of amount under the garb of over payment being highly illegal, arbitrary and without issuing any show-cause notice or giving any opportunity of hearing.

3. Succinct factual background first. Petitioner was appointed as T- Mate (Technical Mate) on 15.10.1977 on temporary basis. His services were regularized w.e.f. 28.11.1983 on the post of T-Mate and he was further promoted as Pump Operator w.e.f. 08.02.2010. He retired from the service as Pump Operator on 30.04.2013. Pursuant to letter dated 08.02.1994 (Annexure P-1) issued by Finance Department of respondent-State of Haryana, petitioner was granted first Higher Standard Pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/- w.e.f. 01.01.1994 and his pay was accordingly re-fixed. Vide notification dated 23.08.1990, State decided that the employees who were working on technical posts in various Departments for which minimum qualification prescribed is matric with ITI certificate/ Polytechnic will be granted the modified pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 01.05.1990 provided that they were getting pay in the pay-scale of Rs.750-940, 775-1025, 800-1150, 950-1400, 950-1500 as on 01.01.1986. Therefore, employees possessing the qualification of matric and ITI were granted the benefit of above pay revision w.e.f. 01.05.1990 or w.e.f. the date of joining/ regularization against such posts. Since aforesaid technical pay-scale was not granted equally to all the employees, therefore, some of the employees approached this Court for grant of technical pay-scale of Rs.12002040 w.e.f. 01.05.1990 and the same was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2010. In compliance thereof, vide letter/ notification dated 09.08.2010 (Annexure P2), a general decision was taken that the employees who were appointed prior to 01.05.1990 on technical post for which educational qualification is matric with ITI under the provisions of Service Rules will be granted the benefit of the same notionally w.e.f. 01.05.1990 and actually from 09.08.2010 (date of notification). Respondent-Department re-fixed the pay of the petitioner accordingly. Vide impugned order/ letter dated 21.11.2014 (Annexure P-3), the respondentDepartment ordered to re-fix the petitioner's pay w.e.f. 01.01.1994 onwards and ordered recovery of overpayment on the ground that as per instructions of the Government, pay-scales of category modified after 01.01.1986 are not entitled for the benefit of Higher Standard Scales and they are entitled for placement in the appropriate ACP w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Petitioner made a representation dated 14.03.2015 (Annexure P-4), in this regard, but to no avail.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The excess amount, if any, was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner retired upon attaining the age of superannuation being a Class III employee and the impugned order passed after his retirement is not sustainable in law.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file.

7. I am of the opinion that the recovery sought to be made would be inequitable, harsh and arbitrary and would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employ