IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

211 CWP-26597-2017 Date of Decision: February 18, 2026 Ramesh Kumar Gupta ....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Deepali Puri with Mr. Arjun Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.11.2017 (Annexure P-12) whereby the respondents have illegally changed the dates of grant of 1^st and 2^nd Time Bound Scale Benefit and from 12.10.1991 to 15.01.2002 and from 12.10.1998 to 15.01.2009, respectively. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the leave encashment and gratuity of the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date the same fell due to the date of actual payment. Further, for directing respondent No.2 to release the Advance Promotional Increment on completion of 23 years of service w.e.f. 15.01.2016 and grant arrears of advance increment and pension along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2017 and, on the eve of his retirement, no disciplinary or criminal proceedings were pending against him. Vide order dated 14.11.2017 (Annexure P-12), the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily changed the dates of grant of 1st and 2nd Time Bound Scale Benefits from 12.10.1991 to 15.01.2002 and from 12.10.1998 to 15.01.2009, respectively and, consequent thereto, ordered recovery, which is impermissible and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015 (1) SCT 195. It is further contended that once the ACP/Time Bound Scale has been granted, any excess payment made thereunder cannot be recovered from a retiree, as held in CWP-2799-2008 titled Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 16.08.2010. During the pendency of the present petition, the benefit on completion of 23 years’ service under the Time Bound Scale was granted vide office order dated

09.08.2023.

3. He further submits that the dates of implementation of Time Bound Scales were changed on the ground that the earlier dates were fixed by counting ad hoc service, whereas the revised dates have been fixed from the date of regularization. However, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the same in the absence of any misrepresentation or fault on his part. Moreover, the petitioner is also entitled to interest on the 23 years’ Time Bound Scale benefit which fell due w.e.f. 15.01.2016.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had furnished three affidavits/undertakings dated 21.06.2017, 04.01.2022 and 24.03.2023 to the effect that he had no objection if any recovery was made on account of excess payment. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, as well as the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-8506- 2024 titled Roop Chand vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on

20.03.2025.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their able assistance. It transpires that, on the eve of retirement of the petitioner, no charge-sheet, disciplinary proceeding or criminal case was pending against him. As such, withholding of gratuity or leave encashment is not justified. Any delay in release of retiral dues would entail him to interest in terms of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa, Superintending Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of