Executive instructions cannot override statutory rules governing pay scales.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India , is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.4 as it violates principle of audi alteram partem and deliberately ignores the judgment of this Court in case titled as "Saurabh Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr." passed in CWP No. 15896 of 2023 (Annexure P-5). Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to grant the pay scale and allowances to the petitioner as per Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 (Annexure P-4) revised in 2011 (Annexure P-12), along with all allowances applicable under the 5^th Punjab Pay Scale Matrix, with further revisions, in view of the judgment in Saurabh Sharma’s case (supra), and for payment of arrears of salary along with interest.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was appointed as Clerk with Municipal Council, Gobindgarh on priority/ compassionate grounds, has been paid basic pay of Rs.19,900/- under 7^th CPC pay matrix, based on a government letter/instructions dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure P-3). However, no notification fixing the pay scale under 7^th CPC for this post has been issued. The petitioner claims entitlement towards pay and allowances as per Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 and its 2011 revision, prescribing pay on the basis of the 5^th Punjab Pay Matrix. The petitioner filed a representation seeking the aforesaid relief, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-11). Hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to pay and allowances as per the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, as revised in 2011, which prescribe a higher pay scale for his post. It is submitted that the government’s letter/instructions dated 17.07.2020, applying the 7^th Central Pay Commission pay scale, cannot override these statutory rules. Learned counsel relies on the judgment in Saurabh Sharma’s case (supra) wherein this Court has held that executive instructions cannot override the statutory rules.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner’s pay scale is governed by the government’s letter/instructions dated 17.07.2020, which applies the 7^th Central Pay Commission pay matrix to all new appointees, including the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s appointment letter clearly refers to this letter, and thus the petitioner accepted the pay scale fixed therein. Learned counsel for the respondents further contends that there is no notification specifically fixing the pay scale of the petitioner’s post under the 7^th CPC, but the respondents are paying the petitioner according to the latest government instructions. Hence, the claim based on the earlier 2009 Rules is not maintainable.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance. The issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Saurabh Sharma’s case (supra) has held that any executive instructions would not dilute or dislodge the implications of the applicable statutory rules. Speaking through Justice H.S. Sethi, the following observations were made:

“...11. In the present petitions, the pay scale of the post in question has been described in the 2016 Rules itself, hence, it cannot be said that by the Instructions dated 17.07.2020, respondents were supplementing the Rules. Rather the I