IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jarnail Singh ....Petitioner Versus Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and another ...Respondents Reserved on: 13.11.2025 Pronounced on: 10.12.2025 Uploaded on: 10.12.2025 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. S.K. Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. S.K. Saini, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the show cause notice dated 23.10.2019 (Annexure P-8) and the impugned order dated 17.06.2020 (Annexure P-10), whereby the benefit of the 1^st Assured Career Progression (ACP) scale granted to the petitioner in 2001 has been withdrawn, and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to recover any excess amount paid on that account.

Brief Facts

2. Briefly the facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 06.08.1979 and was promoted to the post of Auction Recorder on

06.05.1991 in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500. Under the Haryana Civil Services (ACP) Rules, 1998, he was granted the 1st ACP scale of Rs.4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.06.2001 vide order dated 28.01.2008. The petitioner retired on 30.09.2017, and his pension and other retiral benefits were fixed and released accordingly. Subsequently, the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 23.10.2019 alleging that the grant of the 1st ACP scale was inadvertent and contrary to Rule 5(1) of the HCS (ACP) Rules, 1998, as the petitioner, having been promoted prior to 31.12.1995, was not eligible for the ACP benefit. After considering the petitioner’s reply and affording a personal hearing, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 17.06.2020 withdrawing the ACP scale and directing recovery of the excess amount paid.

Contentions

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner joined as Peon on 06.08.1979 and was promoted as Auction Recorder on 06.05.1991. Under the Haryana Civil Services (ACP) Rules, 1998, he was granted the 1^st ACP scale of Rs.4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.06.2001 vide order dated 28.01.2008. He retired on 30.09.2017 after rendering unblemished service and all retiral benefits were duly released. He submits that the impugned show cause notice and the subsequent order withdrawing the ACP scale and ordering recovery were issued without any allegation of misrepresentation, fraud or concealment on the part of the petitioner. Relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala 2022 INSC 498, and by this Court in B.P. Sharma vs. UHBVN (2022(4) SCT 388), he submits that recovery from a retired employee is impermissible. He further contends that the action is vitiated by inordinate delay, as the ACP was granted in 2001 and sought to be withdrawn in 2020. The show cause notice was served 18 years after the grant of ACP.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the grant of the 1^st ACP scale to the petitioner was inadvertent and contrary to Rule 5(1) of the HCS (ACP) Rules, 1998, as the petitioner, having been promoted prior to 31.12.1995, was not eligible. He submits that the withdrawal was effected after following due procedure, including issuance of show cause notice and affording personal hearing, during which the petitioner gave no objection. He further submits that the excess payment made by the respondents being public money is liable to be recovered.

Observation & Analysis

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance it transpires that the petitioner retired on 30.09.2017. The show cause notice was issued on 23.10.2019 and the impugned order was passed on 17.06.2020, i.e., af