210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.02.2026 Suresh Kumar Jain ....Petitioner Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Vidyut Sadan, Hisar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Ravinder Phogat, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Satyam Tandon, Advocate and Mr. Akshay, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6.

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 for quashing the order/letter dated 10.04.2017 (Annexure P-3) issued by respondent No.6. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the arrears amount deducted from the pension of the petitioner on the false pretext of re-fixation of modified grade pay, as the same was kept in abeyance by the respondent-Nigam, with interest at the commercial rate till actual realization. Further, the arrears, if any, be calculated and paid to the petitioner along with interest in view of order dated 10.01.2018 passed by this Court in CWP No.11364 of 2014 (Annexure P-8). It is further prayed that pay and pension of the petitioner be re-fixed properly and any wrongful deduction be rectified and arrears, if any, be paid to the petitioner along with interest after re-fixation of the pay and pension.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner retired from the post of Deputy Superintendent, Operation Division, with the respondent-Nigam. The petitioner retired on 31.01.2016, however, vide letter 10.04.2017, he was informed that his pay was reduced in view of office order no.454 dated 18.12.2013 but the same was not pointed resulting in wrong fixation of pay and pension. The petitioner was also directed to deposit Rs.66,392/- with the respondent-Nigam within 15 days, failing which recovery will be initiated from his pension.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 25.04.2013 resolved to change the nomenclature/designation and pay scales of certain posts of the Field Cadre ministerial/Clerk Staff, a notification dated 01.05.2013 (Annexure P-1) was also issued by the respondent-Nigam in this regard. However, vide order dated 18.12.2013, issued by Chief Engineer with the approval of respondent No.2-Director Operations, the same was kept in abeyance in view of the observations made by the Haryana Bureau of Public Enterprises. It was ordered that the old promotion channel and the old pay scales will remain in practice till finality is reached. The impugned action take vide order dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure P-2) was considered by this Court in CWP No.11364 of 2014 titled as ‘Om Parkash Panwar and others Vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others decided on 10.01.2018 (Annexure P-8) and it was concluded that order dated 18.12.2013 was passed without due authority of law. Further, the petitioners therein were granted arrears with interest.

4. He further submits that the respondent-Nigam is an autonomous body and once the Board of Directors has approved an action, there is no obligation upon it to obtain approval of the Haryana Bureau of Public Enterprises as well. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.9262 of 2012 titled Pawan Kumar and others vs. UHBVNL and others decided on 12.09.2013. He points out that both the LPA preferred against the same before this Court as well as the SLP filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, stand dismissed. Respondent No.2-Director Operations cannot review, modify or order that the decision of the Board of Directors or keep it in abeyance of his own accord. Moreover, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, recovery post-retirement is impermissible in the absence of any allegation of misrepresentation or fraud