CWP-12366-2018 ((O&M) (1) IN THHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARRH CWP-123666-2018 (O&M) Date of Deciision: 06.07.2026 Dev Raj …Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & otherrs ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. S.K.Rattan and Mr. Vishal RRattan, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Rana, Advocate, for Mr. H.S.Gharaun, Advocate, forr the respondents. NAMIT KUUMAR, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has invoked the wwrit jurisdiction of this Court byy filing the insttant petition under Articles 226/2227 of the Constitution of India,, seeking a wr it of mandamus directing the resspondents not to change the datee of option o f the petitioner for grant of revised pay scales and otherr benefits/timee bound scale, as the petitiooner opted for option w.e.f.. 04.04.2006, wwhich is evident from page 23 o f the service-book (Annexure P-- 2) and also order dated 24.12.2007, whichh is recorded at page 19 of thee service-bookk of the petitioner in terms of thee Punjab State Electricity Boardd (Revised Payy) Regulation, 2009 (Annexure P-1), but the respondents havee re-fixed andd reduced the pay by changging his date of option fromm ‘04.04.2006’ to ‘01.04.2006’ on their own annd have further ordered recoveryy VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.09 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-12366-2018 ((O&M) (2)

of a sum of Rs.32,698/-, which has been deeducted from the arrears of thee petitioner's ppensionary benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitiooner submits that the petitionerr was initiallyy appointed as Assistant Linneman with the respondents--Corporation on 04.04.1997 in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800/- with an initiall pay of Rs.10000/-, which was subsequently rrevised to Rs.3260-5300/-. It iss submitted thaat the petitioner’s annual incremment fell due on 1st April of everyy year. The respondents implemented the recommendations of 5th Payy Commission report applicable w.e.f. 01.01 .2006, which were issued videe Finance Circcular dated 15.10.2009, whereb y the pay of the petitioner hass been revisedd in terms of option exercisedd by him w.e.f. 04.04.2006, ass provided in ppara 5 of the said circular dated 15.10.2009. He further submitss that the petitiioner was also granted the beneffit of 9 years’ & 16 years’ time--bound promootional scales w.e.f. 04.04.2006 aand 04.04.2013 respectively andd entries in this regard were duly recorded iin his service-book annexed ass Annexures PP-3 & P-4. Thereafter, the pettitioner retired from service onn 31.05.2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petittioner further submits that thee petitioner’s basic pay was unilaterally reduced from Rs.12490/- too Rs.11700/- vvide Annexure P-5, without issuuing any show cause notice orr affording himm an opportunity of personal heearing. Consequently, a sum off Rs.32,698/- was recovered from the arreaars of his pensionary benefits.. Learned counnsel also argued that the action oof the respondents is in violationn of the principples of natural justice, as neitherr any specific order reducing thee VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.09 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-12366-2018 ((O&M) (3) petitioner’s bbasic pay was ever passed noor any opportunity of personall hearing was aafforded to the petitioner before effecting such recovery. 4. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents--Corporation, while referring to the avermeents contained in para 4 of thee preliminary oobjections of the written statemeent, submits that the petitioner’ss pay has rigghtly been fixed w.e.f. 01.01. 2006, as the petitioner neverr exercised anyy option for fixation of his pay inn the revised pay scale. 5. To controvert the said contenntion raised on behalf of thee respondents-Corporation, learned counsel foor the petitioner submits that thee petitioner opted for fixation of his basic pay w.e.f. 04.04.2006 (Annexure P--

2) and the ssaid option was accepted by thee respondents and his pay wass fixed in thee revised pay scale and eveen the benefit of time-boundd promotional scale on completion of 9 yearrs’ & 16 years’ of service wass granted to thhe petitioner on 04.04.2006 annd 04.04.2013 respectively videe Annexure P-3 and P-4, which are entriees in the service-book of thee petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel foor the parties and have perusedd the record. 7. In pursuance of the revision of ppay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006, thee petitioner optted for fixation and grant of reviised pay scale w.e.f. 04.04.2006.. The said optiion was accepted by the responddents, and his pay in the revisedd pay scale waas fixed w.e.f. 04.04.2006 by refifixing his basic pay at Rs.4775/-.. Simultaneoussly, he was granted 9 years’ timme-bound promotional scale andd his basic payy was re-fixed at Rs.5125/- w.ee.f. 04.04.2006 (Annexure P-3).. VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.09 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-12366-2018 ((O&M) (4)

Subsequentlyy, on completion of 16 years’ of service, he was granted the nextt time-bound ppromotional scale w.e.f. 04.04.20013, and his basic pay was fixedd at Rs.17,1300/- in the pay scale of Rs.109000-34800/- with Grade Pay off Rs.4300/-. FFrom the aforesaid, it is clear tthat the option exercised by thee petitioner waas duly accepted by the respondeents and acted upon while fixingg his pay in the revised pay scale and wwhile granting the time-boundd promotional scales on completion of 9 year s’ & 16 years’ of service w.e.f.. 04.04.2006 aand 04.04.2013, respectively. 8. Furthermore, while reducing thhe petitioner’s basic pay fromm Rs.12490/- tto Rs.11700/- and effecting reccovery of Rs.32,698/- from hiss pensionary bbenefits, neither the petitioner waas issued any show cause noticee nor an opporrtunity of personal hearing was eever afforded to him, which is inn violation of tthe principles of natural justice. It is well-settled proposition off law that no rrecovery can be made from a rettired employee, as has been heldd by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ‘State oof Punjab & others Vs. Rafiqq Masih (Whitte Washer) & others’, AIR 20155 SC 696.

9. Keeping in view the above, the ppresent petition is allowed. Thee action of thhe respondents in reducing thhe petitioner’s basic pay fromm Rs.12490/- tto Rs.11700/- w.e.f. 04.04.20 06 and effecting recovery off Rs.32698/- frfrom his pensionary benefits (Annnexure P-5) is held to be illegall and is herebyy set aside. The respondents aree hereby directed to grant all thee consequentiaal monetary benefits to the p etitioner on the basic pay off Rs.12490/- aand refund the recovered amoount of Rs.32698/- along withh interest at thee rate of 7% p.a. from the date oof recovery till the date of actuall VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.09 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-12366-2018 ((O&M) (5) payment. Thhe aforesaid exercise shall be commpleted within a period of threee months fromm the date of receipt of certified c opy of this order. 06.07.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) Vimal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.09 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-12366-2018 ((O&M) (1) IN THHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARRH CWP-123666-2018 (O&M) Date of Deciision: 06.07.2026 Dev Raj …Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & otherrs ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. S.K.Rattan and Mr. Vishal RRattan, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Rana, Advocate, for Mr. H.S.Gharaun, Advocate, forr the respondents. NAMIT KUUMAR, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has invoked the wwrit jurisdiction of this Court byy filing the insttant petition under Articles 226/2227 of the Constitution of India,, seeking a wr it of mandamus directing the resspondents not to change the datee of option o f the petitioner for grant of revised pay scales and otherr benefits/timee bound scale, as the petitiooner opted for option w.e.f.. 04.04.2006, wwhich is evident from page 23 o f the service-book (Annexure P-- 2) and also order dated 24.12.2007, whichh is recorded at page 19 of thee service-bookk of the petitioner in terms of thee Punjab State Electricity Boardd (Revised Payy) Regulation, 2009 (Annexure P-1), but the respondents havee re-fixed andd reduced the pay by changging his date of option fromm ‘04.04.2006’ to ‘01.04.2006’ on their own annd have further ordered recoveryy VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.09 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-12366-2018 ((O&M) (2)

of a sum of Rs.32,698/-, which has been deeducted from the arrears of thee petitioner's ppensionary benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitiooner submits that the petitionerr was initiallyy appointed as Assistant Linneman with the respondents--Corporation on 04.04.1997 in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800/- with an initiall pay of Rs.10000/-, which was subsequently rrevised to Rs.3260-5300/-. It iss submitted thaat the petitioner’s annual incremment fell due on 1st April of everyy year. The respondents implemented the recommendations of 5th Payy Commission report applicable w.e.f. 01.01 .2006, which were issued videe Finance Circcular dated 15.10.2009, whereb y the pay of the petitioner hass been revisedd in terms of option exercisedd by him w.e.f. 04.04.2006, ass provided in ppara 5 of the said circular dated 15.10.2009. He further submitss that the petitiioner was also granted the beneffit of 9 years’ & 16 years’ time--bound promootional scales w.e.f. 04.04.2006 aand 04.04.2013 respectively andd entries in this regard were duly recorded iin his service-book annexed ass Annexures PP-3 & P-4. Thereafter, the pettitioner retired from service onn 31.05.2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petittioner further submits that thee petitioner’s basic pay was unilaterally reduced from Rs.12490/- too Rs.11700/- vvide Annexure P-5, without issuuing any show cause notice orr affording himm an opportunity of personal heearing. Consequently, a sum off Rs.32,698/- was recovered from the arreaars of his pensionary benefits.. Learned counnsel also argued that the action oof the respondents is in violationn of the principples of natural justice, as neitherr any specific order reducing thee VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.09 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-12366-2018 ((O&M) (3) petitioner’s bbasic pay was ever passed noor any opportunity of personall hearing was aafforded to the petitioner before effecting such recovery. 4. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents--Corporation, while referring to the avermeents contained in para 4 of thee preliminary oobjections of the written statemeent, submits that the petitioner’ss pay has rigghtly been fixed w.e.f. 01.01. 2006, as the petitioner neverr exercised anyy option for fixation of his pay inn the revised pay scale. 5. To controvert the said contenntion raised on behalf of thee respondents-Corporation, learned counsel foor the petitioner submits that thee petitioner opted for fixation of his basic pay w.e.f. 04.04.2006 (Annexure P--

2) and the ssaid option was accepted by thee respondents and his pay wass fixed in thee revised pay scale and eveen the benefit of time-boundd promotional scale on completion of 9 yearrs’ & 16 years’ of service wass granted to thhe petitioner on 04.04.2006 annd 04.04.2013 respectively videe Annexure P-3 and P-4, which are entriees in the service-book of thee petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel foor the parties and have perusedd the record. 7. In pursuance of the revision of ppay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006, thee petitioner optted for fixation and grant of reviised pay scale w.e.f. 04.04.2006.. The said optiion was accepted by the responddents, and his pay in the revisedd pay scale waas fixed w.e.f. 04.04.2006 by refifixing his basic pay at Rs.4775/-.. Simultaneoussly, he was granted 9 years’ timme-bound promotional scale andd his basic payy was re-fixed at Rs.5125/- w.ee.f. 04.04.2006 (Annexure P-3).. VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.09 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-12366-2018 ((O&M) (4)

Subsequentlyy, on completion of 16 years’ of service, he was granted the nextt time-bound ppromotional scale w.e.f. 04.04.20013, and his basic pay was fixedd at Rs.17,1300/- in the pay scale of Rs.109000-34800/- with Grade Pay off Rs.4300/-. FFrom the aforesaid, it is clear tthat the option exercised by thee petitioner waas duly accepted by the respondeents and acted upon while fixingg his pay in the revised pay scale and wwhile granting the time-boundd promotional scales on completion of 9 year s’ & 16 years’ of service w.e.f.. 04.04.2006 aand 04.04.2013, respectively. 8. Furthermore, while reducing thhe petitioner’s basic pay fromm Rs.12490/- tto Rs.11700/- and effecting reccovery of Rs.32,698/- from hiss pensionary bbenefits, neither the petitioner waas issued any show cause noticee nor an opporrtunity of personal hearing was eever afforded to him, which is inn violation of tthe principles of natural justice. It is well-settled proposition off law that no rrecovery can be made from a rettired employee, as has been heldd by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ‘State oof Punjab & others Vs. Rafiqq Masih (Whitte Washer) & others’, AIR 20155 SC 696.

9. Keeping in view the above, the ppresent petition is allowed. Thee action of thhe respondents in reducing thhe petitioner’s basic pay fromm Rs.12490/- tto Rs.11700/- w.e.f. 04.04.20 06 and effecting recovery off Rs.32698/- frfrom his pensionary benefits (Annnexure P-5) is held to be illegall and is herebyy set aside. The respondents aree hereby directed to grant all thee consequentiaal monetary benefits to the p etitioner on the basic pay off Rs.12490/- aand refund the recovered amoount of Rs.32698/- along withh interest at thee rate of 7% p.a. from the date oof recovery till the date of actuall VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.09 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-12366-2018 ((O&M) (5) payment. Thhe aforesaid exercise shall be commpleted within a period of threee months fromm the date of receipt of certified c opy of this order. 06.07.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) Vimal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.09 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.