Jiya Lal Bhardwaj , Judge

Oral

Whether approved for reporting? ¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed forthe following substantive reliefs:

“i) That the impugned order dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure P-6) may kindly be quashed and set-aside being factually wrong, arbitrary, illegal and violative of the judgment dated 26.04.2022( Annexure P-4) passed by the Hon’ble Court in CWP (T) No. 7283 of 2020 titled as Tara Chand Vs. HRTC and another with all consequential benefits, by issuing writ ofcertiorari and justice be done;

ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner as already fixed vide Annexure P-2 dated 09.03.2016 after allowing the benefit of 32 years’ service w.e.f. 24.04.2015 because the impugned order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 reducing the pay of the petitioner stands set-aside & quashed by the Hon’ble Court vide Annexure P-4 dated 26.04.2022 with a further direction to revise the pension, death-cum- retirement gratuity and leave encashment & release due & admissible arrears to the petitioner forthwith along with interest @ 9% per annumand justice be done.”

22. The facts, as emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor with the respondent- Corporation on regular basis on 24.04.1983 and was p.romoted to the post of Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 29.12.2015 and later to the post of Inspector w.e.f. 30.11.2018. After his promfotion, his pay was re-fixed and the petitioner has now been retired from service on attaining theage of superannuation on 30.04t.2019.

3. The petitioner vide office order dated 09.03.2016, was allowed the benefit of increment under Assured Career Progression Scheme after 32 years service (old) w.e.f. 24.04.2015 taking into consideration the option exercised by him to opt the benefit of 8,16,24 ahnd 32 years service. As per office order dated 09.03.2016 (AnnexuregP-2), his pay was fixed at Rs. 17,390/-+ 2400/- Grade Pay = Rs.i19,790/- w.e.f. 24.04.2015. Thereafter, vide office order dated25.04.2019 (Annexure P-3), the respondent-Corporation had withdrawn the pay fixation done earlier with respect to the petitioner, whereby he was granted the benefit of increment under ACPS (old) after 32 years service and his pay was re-fixed at Rs. 16,810/- + 2400/- = Rs. 19,210/-, which admittedly was less than the pay earlier fixed w.e.f. 24.04.2015, which was Rs. 17,390/- + 2400/- = Rs.19,790/-.

34. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order, whereby his pay was re-fixed, vide office order dated 25.04.2019, had approached this Court by way of CWPOA No. 7283 of 2020, titled, Tara Chand Vs. HRTC and another. This Court vide judgment dated 26.4.2022 had allowed the said petition an d the order of recovery dated 25.04.2019 was quashed and soet aside. The relevant para of thejudgment reads as under:

“2. This Court ron 24.03.2022 vide detailed order, laid down the following parameters where recovery by the employer would be permissibleu/impermissible from the employee. Paragraph 35 whereof reads as under:-

“35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra), it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, where payments haveCmistakenly been made by the employer, yet in the following situations, recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law:-

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been requ