JUDGMENT

Mr M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment dt.16.10.2019 in CWP-5253-2016 passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The said Writ Petition had been preferred by the respondent herein challenging an office order dt.24.08.2015 (P9) passed by the Secretary of Bhakra Beas Management Board ( for short 'the Board') rejecting the respondent's representation dt.27.2.2015 to stop recovery of Rs.1,79,463/- on the ground that an excess increment was paid to him from 15.09.1995 when Second Time Bound Pay Scale was granted to him.

3. The respondent was initially selected as a Draftsman by the Subordinate Service Selection Board in the Haryana Irrigation Department on 15.09.1979. He was promoted as Divisional Head Draftsman in Drawing Branch of the Board in 1998 and later promoted as Sub Divisional Officer on 16.05.2013.

4. Thereafter, he was working as Assistant Design Engineer with the appellants. He retired from service on 31.07.2015 after attaining the age of superannuation.

5. He had been granted, while in service, his second time bound pay scale on 15.09.1995.

6. Just prior to his retirement in the year 2015, his service book was demanded for revising the pay fixation. Thereafter on 10.02.2015, his pay was fixed and an amount of Rs. 275/- was taken out on the ground that it had been paid incorrectly.

7. Thereafter an office order dt.10.02.2015 (P2) was issued stating that his pay on grant of 16 years Time Bound Pay Scale was refixed at Rs. 2550/- w.e.f. 15.09.1995 in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 instead of what was already fixed at Rs. 2640/- w.e.f. the said date in the said scale, and it was mentioned therein that recovery would be effected from 15.09.1995 onwards.

8. But no prior show cause notice was issued to the respondent before passing order dt.10.02.2015 (P2) and no justification was mentioned therein as to why the Second Time Bound Pay Scale was being withdrawn from him and his pay was being refixed. There was no mention that there was any conduct attributable to the respondent on the basis of which the pay revision was done and recovery was sought to be made.

9. Thereafter, order dt.26.02.2015 (P3) was issued reiterating that recovery would be effected from 15.09.1995 and it was indicated that his pay was refixed from 01.09.1998 upto 01.09.2005 with appropriate deductions at each stage. Thereafter, a new pay scale was fixed to the petitioner vide order dt.26.02.2015 (P4).

10. The Respondent contended that such recovery cannot be effected from his pay or retiral benefits as he had not represented or played fraud upon appellants to get the Second Time Bound Scale, and at the fag end of his service this cannot be done. The respondent submitted representation on 27.02.2015 (P5) opposing the recovery. There was no response to this representation and he later made other representations on 31.03.2015 and 01.04.2015.

11. The respondent also contends that on 17.04.2015 vide Annexure P6, the Director/Water Regulation of the appellant addressed a letter to the Chief Engineer, Bhakra Dam of the appellant referring to respondent's plan/representation opposing the recovery being made on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih, 2015(1) RSJ 177 rendered on 18.12.2014, prohibiting any such recovery from employees who were due to retire within one year of the order of recovery.

12. When there was no response