IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (Sr. No. 292)

(1) CWP-7269-2020 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 03.03.2025 Jaswinder Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh ...Respondent (2) CWP-13917-2020 (O&M)

Gopal Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh ...Respondent (3) CWP-7266-2020 (O&M)

Pammi and others ...Petitioners Versus The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh ...Respondent (4) CWP-11477-2020 (O&M)

Ravi Shankar Pandit and others ...Petitioners Versus The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh ...Respondent (5) CWP-6650-2020 (O&M)

Ram Parshad ...Petitioner Versus The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh ...Respondent (6) CWP-6885-2021 (O&M)

Kali Ram and others ...Petitioners Versus The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh ...Respondent (7) CWP-4128-2021 (O&M)

Dheer Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh ...Respondent (8) CWP-9168-2021 (O&M)

Prem Kumar ...Petitioner Versus The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Ravindra Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-7269-2020 and CWP-6650-2020.

Mr. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-7266-2020.

Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Shikha Singla, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-9168-2021.

Mr. Nitish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-4128-2021.

Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-6885-2021.

Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the respondent-High Court in CWP-7269-2020 and CWP-13917-2020.

Mr. Kanverpal Singh Gill, Advocate for Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for the respondent-High Court in CWP-6885-2021, CWP-9168-2021 and CWP-4128-2021. Ms. Sukriti Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-High Court in CWP-6650-2020 and CWP-11477-2020.

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate with Ms. Preet Agroa, Advocate and Mr. Sachit Katoch, Advocate for the respondent-High Court in CWP-7266-2020.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

1. By this common order, eight writ petitions, the details of which have been given in the heading, are being decided as all these petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts.

2. In the present bunch of petitions, the grievance of the petitioners is that their pay has been revised by the respondents and after the revision, the recovery has been ordered and that too in a selective manner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the pay of the petitioners was fixed by the respondents as per the Notification issued in the year 2011 and the petitioners continued to receive the said re-fixed salary, which was fixed by the respondents on their own without there being any input by the petitioners and now, the said pay is again being re-fixed to the detriment of the petitioners and the recovery of the excess payment has also been ordered to be done starting from 01.01.2018, which action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no recovery of excess payment can be done from a Class-III or a Class-IV employee, especially when there is no misrepresentation on the part of the employee concerned qua the fixation of their salary, which has now been re-fixed by the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the re-fixation of the salary of the petitioners has been done on the basis of the Instructions dated 01.01.2018 (Annexure R-2) issued by the Government of Punjab and keeping in view the said Instructions, till the date of the Instructions issued by the Government of Punjab, no recovery is to be done but as, the Instructions were issued by the State of Punjab on 01.01.2018, the recovery is being done starting from 01.01.2018 though, it is a conceded fact that the order re-fixing their salary was passed starting from the year 2019 onwards.

6. I have heard learned counsel for