While an employer may correct erroneous pay fixation, recovery of excess payments from employees, especially those in lower service categories, is impermissible in the absence of misrepresentation or fraud, as it causes undue hardship and violates principles of equity.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner calls into question the validity of the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the respondent No.2- District and Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby although the petitioner has been granted 3rd ACP w.e.f. 01.02.2023 on the post of Daftri, his pay has been directed to be re-fixed in accordance with the opinion rendered by the concerned Accounts Officers, and recovery proceedings, if any, have also been directed to be initiated separately as per the rules.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane to the disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner joined the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, as Daftri on 25.01.1999 and was subsequently promoted as Clerk on 22.05.2010. He was granted the benefit of 1st and 2nd ACP on 01.02.2009 and 01.02.2015, respectively. He was also granted the benefit of an additional increment on 29.07.2019, i.e., subsequent to his promotion as Clerk. Thereafter, consequent upon the completion of his 24 years of service on 24.01.2023, he made a request for granting him the benefit of 3rd ACP in accordance with the applicable rules. Accordingly, an opinion was sought from the Section Officer of the Sessions Division concerned, who, vide opinion dated 26.09.2023, opined that the additional increment granted to the petitioner on his promotion was not admissible, as he was posted as Daftri at the time of implementation of the Shetty Commission’s report. It was also opined that the pay of the petitioner fixed at the time of grant of the 2nd ACP also needs to be reviewed/refixed, and that his case for grant of 3rd ACP w.e.f. 01.02.2023 on the post of Daftri, under Rule 7(3) read with Rule 13 of the Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2016, may be considered subject to fulfillment of the conditions required for grant of ACP. Based on this opinion, a second opinion was also sought from the Chief Accounts Officer-cum-Nodal Officer concerned, who, vide letter dated 06.11.2023, forwarded the hereinafter extracted opinion of their Senior Accounts Officer:-

“Keeping in view the facts as narrated in the note it is submitted as under:-

1. Pay fixed at the time of granting 2nd ACP on 1.2.2015 as daftri is not in order and needs to be re fixed.

2. He is not entitled to get one additional increment granted on 22.5.10 as clerk on the implementation of Shetty Commission.

3. He is entitled to get 3rd ACP w.e.f. 1.2.2023 as daftri under rule 7(3) r/w rule 13 of Haryana Civil Services (ACP) Rules, 2016, as per provisions contained in ACP rules.”

3. The above opinions constituted the bedrock for the impugned order dated 08.01.2024, which has caused prejudice to the petitioner and has impelled him to assail the same before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the “additional increment” granted to the petitioner was granted specifically in accordance with the rules and it was not at all an “advance increment”, as is evident from the opinions (supra) furnished by the Section Officer and the Accounts Officer concerned. He also places reliance upon the order dated 25.01.2018 passed in CWP-14750-2015 ( Om Parkash and others vs. State of Haryana and others ), to submit that a Coordinate Bench of this Court has already clarified that any increment paid with reference to the Haryana Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2016, is distinct from the implementation of the Shetty Commission’s report in respect of increment and does not amount to an advance i