Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd ... on 14 January, 2023
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:006819
CWP-23319-2016 (O&M) -1-
217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-23319-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.02.2023
JAGJIT SINGH
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION
LTD. PATIALA & OTHERS
.....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Surinder Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5.
Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the action of respondents vide which the pay of the petitioner is being reduced and the recovery is being sought to be effected from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner with a further direction to the respondents to release the retiral benefits i.e. pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it is a case where the petitioner was working as Bill Distributor in the respondent-Corporation and on 18.08.2000 vide Annexure P-1, he was 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 02:44:03 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:006819 CWP-23319-2016 (O&M) -2- promoted to the post of Junior Meter Reader and two increments were granted to him on his promotion. He submitted that the post of Bill Distributor is a Class IV post whereas the post of Junior Meter Reader is a Class III post and in this way, the promotion was effected vide order dated 18.08.2000. He submitted that thereafter his pay was properly fixed since the pay of Junior Meter Reader was less than that of the Bill Distributor his pay was accordingly protected by the respondent-Corporation itself and his pay was fixed and thereafter he kept on drawing the pay accordingly till the time he retired. He retired on attaining the age of 58 years because he was in a Class III post on 31.07.2015. He submitted that after his retirement when his pensionary benefits were to be given an objection was raised by the Audit Department that wayback in the year 2000 when he was promoted as a Junior Meter Reader, then in fact it was not a case of promotion but it was a case of a fresh appointment and therefore, the two increments which have been granted to him could not have been granted and therefore, his pay was fixed at a reduced rate after his retirement and on that basis his pension was fixed and thereafter all the retiral benefits were granted to him on the basis of the reduced fixation of pay. He submitted that a perusal of Annexure P-1 would show that on the face of it, it was a case of promotion and the petitioner was promoted and now the Audit Department of respondent-Corporation has made an opinion that instead of promotion it was a case of fresh appointment and he has been deprived of his legitimate rights for no reason. He further submitted that he even served a legal notice to the respondent-Corporation vide Annexure P-4 and when a reply was filed vide Annexure P-5 by the respondent-Corporation through its 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 02:44:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:006819 CWP-23319-2016 (O&M) -3- Additional Superintending Engineer, Distribution Division, Mansa it has been specifically stated by him that the petitioner was promoted as JMR and rather thereafter it was also repeatedly clarified that the appointment of the employee on JMR is not an appointment but it is a promotion and that his pay has already been protected at page No.24 of the service book which has now been withdrawn. He further submitted that now when the reply has been filed by the respondent-Corporation it has been now stated that two increments were erroneously granted to him because it was a case of appointment and not promotion and the written statement has been filed by Senior Executive Engineer, Distribution Division, Mansa and he referred to para No.5 of the reply on merits in this regard. He submitted that the respondent-Corporation have been taking contradictory stand on their own. In the reply which has been filed to the legal notice served by the petitioner upon them it was categorically stated by them it was a case of promotion whereas when they filed reply before this Court one another Officer has submitted that he was freshly appointed and it was not a case of promotion and therefore, the increments were wrongly granted to him and in this way his pay has been wrongly fixed after his retirement and pension thereafter was also fixed erroneously. He further submitted that respondent- Corporation cannot be permitted to take up this plea that the petitioner was not promoted once the Additional Superintending Engineer, Distribution Division, Mansa had himself replied to the legal notice in which it was categorically stated that he was promoted and rather a bare language used in the appointment/promotion letter (Annexure P-1) would show that the petitioner was promoted. He submitted that he has been deprived of his 3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 02:44:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:006819 CWP-23319-2016 (O&M) -4- lawful rights.
Learned counsel further submitted that apart from the above when after his retirement his pension has been fixed at a lower rate and pensionary benefits were also given to him with a delay and PPO regarding the same was issued on 03.04.2017 which was also after more than 1 ½ years and there was no justification for delay in the payment as well. He further submitted that after his retirement when his pay was fixed at a reduced rate, then he was not granted any opportunity of hearing and therefore, the principles of natural justice were also violated. He submitted that inaction of the respondent-Corporation involves civil consequences and for that purpose some opportunity of hearing has to be given to the petitioner which has not been done by the respondent-Corporation and therefore, the action was totally arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to law.
On the other hand, Mr. H.S. Ghuman, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 and Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.4.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has submitted that Annexure P-1 is an order of appointment and it was not an order of promotion and that is why after the petitioner had retired when the Audit Department had taken an objection that since it was a case of a fresh appointment and not a promotion, two increments which were granted to him erroneously have now been withdrawn and accordingly, the pension of the petitioner has been fixed. He also submitted on categorical query being asked by this Court to him as to whether his pay stood protected or not, to which he replied that so far as the pay when he was appointed as a 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 02:44:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:006819 CWP-23319-2016 (O&M) -5- Junior Meter Reader, the pay was protected but the dispute in the present case is only pertaining to grant of two increments to which the petitioner was not entitled at the time when he was appointed on 18.08.2000. They have also submitted that it is also correct that at the time of fixation of his pension at a reduced scale, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It is a case where vide Annexure P-1 the petitioner is stated to be promoted on 18.08.2000. The relevant portion of aforesaid Annexure P-1 is reproduced as under:-
"The promotions and appointments of the following employees are being done in public welfare. The same be complied with immediately.
Sr. Name of Present Proposed Remarks No. Employee/Father' designation & designation & s Name/Date of posting posting Birth
1. Onkar B.D. S.E. J.M. Reader Against vacant Mishra/Ram Operation S.E Operation post Kewal/2.7.56 Circle Halqa Jalandhar Bathinda 2 to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 7
8. Jagjit B.D. Deputy -do- Against vacant Singh/Harnam Chief Engineer SE Operation post Singh/27.7.57 Operation Circle Circle Bathinda Bathinda
9. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX When the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent-
Corporation vide Annexure P-4, then the same was replied vide Annexure P-5 by none other than the Additional Superintending Engineer, Distribution Division, Mansa who is a fairly senior enough officer wherein he categorically stated that the petitioner was promoted as JMR from BD and
5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 02:44:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:006819 CWP-23319-2016 (O&M) -6- it was also clarified by him that the appointment of petitioner on JMR is not an appointment but it is a promotion. He has also submitted that the pay of the petitioner had already been protected. However, when a reply was filed by the respondent-Corporation, a different stand has been taken by stating that there is no dispute with regard to the correct grant of pay protection but the only objection which was raised by the respondent-Corporation was that in the year 2000 the petitioner was not promoted but he was only appointed and therefore, he could not have been given two increments and therefore, after reducing his two increments, his pay has been fixed and consequently his pension has been fixed. This Court is of the view that the stand taken in the written statement by the respondent-Corporation is totally erroneous and against the record. A perusal of the aforesaid Annexure P-1 would show that on the face of it, it was a promotion and the same has been so substantiated by an officer of the rank of Additional Superintending Engineer in the reply to the legal notice vide Annexure P-5. Therefore, now a stand taken in the written statement loses its significance since it is an arbitrary stand which has been taken by the respondent-Corporation.
During the course of arguments, a query raised to the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that assumingly for the sake of arguments it is assumed that the petitioner was freshly appointed and not promoted, then as to whether the petitioner had resigned and on the same day, he was appointed or not to which he stated that he never resigned and he was continuous in service when the aforesaid order dated 18.08.2000 (Annexure P-1) was passed. In case of the aforesaid position again it can be seen that it could not have been a case of a fresh appointment since they 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 02:44:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:006819 CWP-23319-2016 (O&M) -7- could not have appointed a person who is already on job. Therefore, this Court is of ex facie view that the order Annexure P-1 was a case of a promotion which has been so substantiated by an officer of the respondent- Corporation of the rank of Additional Superintending Engineer, Distribution Division, Mansa. Therefore the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed after not considering the increments granted to him and consequently his pension was also wrongly fixed.
The second issue which arises for consideration in this case was with regard to delay in the payment of the retiral benefits. As per the learned counsel for the parties, there was a delay of 1½ years. No justification has come forth as to why there was a delay in the payment of retiral benefits even on the amount regarding which the pension was fixed on the reduced amount. Therefore the petitioner would also be entitled for interest on the delayed payment as well.
After the retirement of the petitioner when his pay was fixed at a reduced rate, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and it is also in violation of principles of natural justice since it involves civil consequences.
In view of the aforesaid position, the present petition is allowed. It is directed that the respondent-Corporation shall refix the pay of the petitioner at the time of retirement and fix his pension accordingly alongwith two increments which were granted to the petitioner. After refixing the pension then the remaining amount of the arrears shall be calculated and shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. So far as the retiral benefits even at the 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 02:44:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:006819 CWP-23319-2016 (O&M) -8- reduced pension is concerned, there had been an unexplained delay of about 1½ years to which the petitioner is entitled for interest @ 6% per annum. Consequently, respondent-Corporation is directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner from the date of accrual till disbursement. All the payments shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. In case the payments are not made within a period of three months, then the future interest shall be @ 9% per annum instead of 6%.
14.02.2023 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
rakesh JUDGE
Whether speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:006819
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 02:44:04 :::