IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:20.01.2025 Pronounced on:29.01.2025 Dr. Satish Pal Bansal ...Appellant Vs State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG Punjab -.-

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J.

1. The instant regular second appeal is preferred by the appellant- plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2009 passed by the learned lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2007 passed by the learned trial Court, was allowed. Against the aforesaid judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court, the instant regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellants-defendants.

2. Succinctly, the bone of contention is that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration to the effect that he was correctly placed in the pay scale of Rs. 14,300–18,150, with a basic pay of Rs. 15,500 per month, effective from January 1, 1996, along with the benefit of bunching as per the Punjab Government, Department of Finance notifications No. 7/1/97- FPI/314 dated January 6, 1998, and No. 7/1/97-FPI/7370 dated May 19, 1998. He further contended that the provisions of order No. Est- 1.2000/8099, 8102 dated September 13, 2000, and the guidelines issued under letter No. 7/84/98-5921/4426 dated April 17, 2000, were not applicable to him and were contrary to the Civil Services Rules as well as the aforementioned notifications. Additionally, the appellant sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from revising or reducing his pay scale from Rs. 14,300–18,150 and his basic pay of Rs. 15,500 per month, effective from January 1, 1996 to the revised scale of Rs. 12,000- Rs. 15,500. He also prayed for an injunction against any deductions from his future salary and against the reduction of his specialty allowance from Rs. 250 per month to Rs. 100 per month from October 1997, alleging that such actions were unlawful, arbitrary, and in violation of the prescribed notifications. Hence, the suit

3. The respondents-defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing a joint written statement, wherein it was stated that all the actions of the respondents-defendants were in accordance with the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Punjab Government Notifications and Instructions issued from time to time and therefore the revision of the pay of the appellant-plaintiff was just and legal.

4. On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial Court framed as many as six issues including relief. Parties led their respective evidence and on appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff. Subsequently, the respondents-defendants preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court which was partly allowed to the extent that while the revision of pay of the appellant-plaintiff was just and legal, the respondents-defendants would, however, not be entitled to recover the amount already paid to the appellant-plaintiff.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the appellant was initially placed in the scale of Rs. 3700-5300 w.e.f. 30.09.1995 after due diligence by the Secretary to the Punjab Government. The subsequent placement of the appellant in the lower revised scale i.e. Rs. 3000-4500 on 01.01.1996 and the denial of bunching benefit was patently illegal, unjust, and contrary to the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Further, it was contended that the instructions dated 17.04.2000 (supra) cannot supersede the Notification dated 19.05.1998. The eligibility and suitability of the appellant was adjudged multiple times including at the time of crossing the 1^st efficiency bar dated 07.03.1983, fixation of pay after 6^th pay commission 01.01.1986, crossing the 2^nd efficiency bar dated 12.06.1986, grant of proficiency step ups afte