Post-retirement, an employer cannot alter seniority or recover alleged excess salary from retiral benefits due to pay fixation errors, as such actions violate the restrictive time-frames for pay verification and the mandate against recovery of salary for periods beyond the legally prescribed look-back window.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari/Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, for quashing office order No. 5693 dated 21.07.2014 (Annexure P-12) and order No. 5721 dated 21.07.2014 (Annexure P-13), qua the petitioner, whereby the dates of grant of placements to the petitioner in the higher pay scale of Senior Clerk/Junior Assistant have been altered after her retirement and recovery has been ordered from her leave encashment; and also for quashing memo dated 12.03.2014 (Annexure P-11), whereby the seniority of the petitioner has been changed after her retirement on account of misinterpretation of the judgments dated 26.09.2013 passed in CWP-1267-1999 and CWP-9718-2000 (Annexures P-7 and P-8), being patently illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and unconstitutional, and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Pramukh Sachiv, Irrigation Department & Ors., reported as 2014 (3) SCT 98 (Annexure P-16) and further directing the respondents to release all retiral benefits of the petitioner, including gratuity, leave encashment forthwith on the basis of the last pay actually drawn by the petitioner, without any reduction or recovery, along with interest @ 18% per annum.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk on 23.12.1977 on ad hoc basis in the erstwhile Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Limited (now Punjab Water Resources Management & Development Corporation Limited). Her services were regularized w.e.f. 26.10.1982 vide order dated 19.04.1983 (Annexure P-1), which was subsequently modified, and she was granted regularization w.e.f. 01.02.1978 vide order dated 20.09.1991 (Annexure P-2) in public interest. Petitioner earned promotion and placement on various posts from time to time. The petitioner was granted placement as Senior Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.1200–2100 vide order dated 17.02.1992 (Annexure P-3) and thereafter as Junior Assistant vide orders dated 21.02.1992, read with order dated 19.03.1993, which was further modified vide order dated 21.06.2004 (Annexure P-4). The respondent-Corporation issued tentative seniority list as on 30.09.1991 vide letter dated 07.02.1992 as discernible from (Annexure P-5) and petitioner was placed at Sr. No.82 whereas one Smt. Darshana Kumari Sharma was placed at Sr. No.13 by assigning her seniority from the date of her regular appointment i.e. 06.01.1978. There was no objection from any quarters with regard to the proposed seniority list (Annexure P-5). The Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation, vide agenda item No.139.8 approved the seniority list of Clerks/Senior Clerks/Junior Assistants, which was issued vide letter No.14456 of 04.07.1996 by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, whereby the petitioner and certain other employees were granted benefit of seniority from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment. The petitioner was allowed benefit of seniority from i.e. 23.12.1977, and was placed at Sr. No. 29 and one Smt. Darshana Kumari Sharma was placed at Sr. No.31. The said seniority list was finalized and circulated vide letter dated 14.01.1999 (Annexure P-6). Aggrieved by the same, Smt. Darshana Kumari and other employees filed CWP-1267-1999 before this Court, seeking quashing of the seniority list dated 14.01.1999 (Annexure P-6). The aforesaid writ