Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Sudesh Kumar vs D/O Power Development Ut Of J&K on 9 December, 2025
:: 1 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (RESERVED)
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No.61/527/2020
Order reserved on: 14th day of October, 2025
Pronounced on: - This the ___________ 2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. SUDESH KUMAR Age 49 years
S/o Sh. Prem Nath
R/o Ward No. 10, H.No 54, Shiv Nagar Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
Mobile No.94199818315.
2. ANIL KUMAR SLATHIA Age 50 years
S/o R.S Slathia
R/o CEO Road Talab Saillan, Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
3. SHAM LAL Age 50 years
S/o Sh. Mast Ram R/o Karan Nagar
Udhampur
PIN Code 182101
4. ASHOK ABROL Age 52 years
S/o Sh. Des Raj
R/o Chabutra Bazaar, District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
5. BISHAN DASS Age 55 years
S/o Sh. Prem Chand
R/o Battal Ballian Tehsil & District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
6. YOG RAJ Age 49 years
S/o Sh. Paras Ram
R/o Village Dhanroi Tehsil & District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
7. YOG RAJ Age 52 years
S/o Sh. Ram Nath
R/o Village Garnai Tehsil & District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
HARSHIT HARSHIT
YADAV YADAV
:: 2 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020
8. SEHDEV SINGH PATYAL Age 50 years
S/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh Patyal
R/o Ward no. 5, Barrian Tehsil & District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
9. SANJAY KUMAR Age 48 years
S/o Sh. Kashmiri Lal
R/o CEO Road Dandyal Tehsil & District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
10. GOVERDHAN SINGH Age 56 years
S/o Sh. Kesari Singh
PIN Code 182101
R/o Village Kalller Tehsil & District Udhampur.
11. OM PARKASH Age 50 years
S/o Sh. Prem Chand
R/o Battal Ballian Tehsil & District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
12. VIKAS SHARMA Age 52 years
S/o Sh. Rattan Chand
R/o Talab Sailan Tehsil & District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
13. VINOD GUPTA Age 46 years
S/o Sh. Ved Parkash
R/o Dhar Road Tehsil & District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
14. OM PARKASH Age 48 years
S/o Sh. Gokal Chand
R/o Village Patta Chack, Tehsil & District
Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
15. NAVEEN SHARMA Age 45 years
S/o Sh. Parkash Nath
R/o Subash Nagar, Tehsil & District
Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
16. VIJAY KUMAR Age 53 years
S/o Sh. Chuni Lal
R/o Housing Colony Tehsil & District
Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
17. SANJAY MALHOTRA Age 51 years
HARSHIT HARSHIT
YADAV YADAV
:: 3 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020
S/o Sh. Madan Lal
R/o Ward no. 12, Shiv Nagar District
Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
18. VIKASH KUMAR SHARMA Age 32 years
S/o Sh. Hans Raj
R/o Plot No. 81, Phase-I,
Housing Colony, Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
19. SUNIL KUMAR Age 40 years
S/o Jia Ram R/o Balnagar, Jib.
Tehsil & District Udhampur
PIN Code 182101
20. ANKUR PRASHAR Age 33 years
S/o Sh.Ram Lal Prashar
R/o Village Tikri District Udhampur
PIN Code 182121
21. RAHUL SHARMA Age 33 years
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal
R/o Balnagar, Jib Tehsil & District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182121
22. RAJ KUMAR Age 43 years
S/o Sh. Prem Nath
R/o Nagrota Near Radha Swami Satsang Ghar
District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
23. RAJENDER KUMAR Age 33 years
S/o Sh. Chand
R/o Rathian (Bleya) P.O Sattani
Tehsil & District Udhampur
PIN Code 182101
24. AMIT SHARMA Age 33 years
S/o Sh. Joginder Sharma
R/o H.No. 82, Ward no.4, Court Road
District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
25. BARUN PARGAL Age 33 years
S/o late Sh. Rajinder Parshad
R/o..Ward no. 15, H.NO. 201,
Kangloo Karali Dhar Road
HARSHIT HARSHIT
YADAV YADAV
:: 4 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020
Udhampur.
PIN Code 182101
26. RAHUL GUPTA Age 29 years
S/o Sh. Sham Lal
R/o Near Govt. Hr Sec. School, Garhi,
Tehsil & District Udhampur
PIN Code 182101
27. KAMAL KUMAR ANAND Age 33 years
S/o Sh. Romesh Kumar
R/o Kaitha P.O Keya Tehsil Ramnagar
District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182122
28. GAGAN SINGH Age 33 years
S/o Sh. Gardheer Singh
R/o Village Qmara Tehsil Majalata
District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182122
29. RAMESH SINGH Age 35 years
S/o Sh. Frangi Ram
R/o Latyar, P.O Lander, Tehsil Panchari,
District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182125
30. SANJAY KUMAR Age 32 years
S/o Sh. Hans Raj
R/o Barmeen Tehsil Ramnagar
District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182122
31. SUDDAM HUSSAIN SHAH Age 31 years
S/o Sh. Ali Asgar Shah
R/o Village Farol Tehsil Ramnagar
District Udhampur.
PIN Code 182122
32. ALTAF HUSSAIN Age 54 years
S/o Sh. Mir Hussain
R/o Kheora Tehsil & District Rajouri
PIN Code 185131
33. VINOD KUMAR Age 51 years
S/o Sh. Om Parkash
R/o Ward No.9 Tehsil & District Rajouri
PIN Code 185131
HARSHIT HARSHIT
YADAV YADAV
:: 5 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020
34. TUFAIL HUSSAIN Age 54 years
S/o Wall Dad
R/o Kheora Tehsil & District
Rajouri
PIN Code 185131
35. CHAMAN LAL Age 53 years
S/o Sh. Chuni Lal
R/o Village Muradpur
Tehsil & District Rajouri
PIN Code 185131
36. AJAY SHAKTI Age 48 years
S/o Sh.Hardev Raj
R/o Jawahar Nagar
Tehsil & District Rajouri.
PIN Code 185131
37. JARNAIL SINGH Age 49 years
S/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o House No. 73, Sector-D
Sainik Colony Jammu
PIN Code 190004
38. HARDARSHAN SINGH Age 45 years
S/o Sh. Krishan Singh
R/o Bassi Jamwal, P.O Jandi
Tehsil Hiranagar District Kathua
PIN Code 184142
39. SURINDER SINGH Age 48 years
S/o Sh. Krishan Singh
R/o Chanjal Post office and Tehsil Hiranagar
District Kathua.
PIN Code 184142
40. DURGA PARSAD Age 47 years
S/o Narsingh Raj
R/o Village Sallan Tehsil Hiranagar
District Kathua.
PIN Code 184142
41. KHURSHEED AHMED-Age 45 years
S/o Abdul Gani Bhat
R/o Karool Tehsil & District Kishtwar.
PIN Code 182204
42. NAZIR AHMED AHANGAR Age 54 years
S/o Ch. Mustafa
HARSHIT HARSHIT
YADAV YADAV
:: 6 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020
R/o Galhar Tehsil & District Kisthwar
PIN Code 182204
43. AMIT SHARMA Age 44 years
S/o Sh. Bal Krishan Sharma
R/o Electric Colony District Samba.
PIN Code 184121
44. TANVEER HUSSAIN Age 52 years
S/o Mohd Shafi
R/o Khalban Thanamandi District Rajouri.
PIN Code 185131
45. ASHOK KUMAR Age 47 years
S/o Sh. Mulkh Raj
R/o VPO Kootah Tehsil Hiranagar
District Kathua.
PIN Code 184142
46. RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA Age 46 years
S/o Sh. Chean Matloni Tehsil Hiranagar
Kasha
PIN Code 184142
....Applicants
(Through Advocate: Mr. Karman S. Johal)
VERSUS
1. THE UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND
KASHMIR, Through
its Principal Secretary to Government,
Power Development Department,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
Electric Maintenance &
Rural Electrification Wing,
(JPDCL), Jammu
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
System and Operation Wing,
(JPTCL), Jammu
4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
Distribution (JPDCL), Jammu.
HARSHIT HARSHIT
YADAV YADAV
:: 7 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
Transmission (JPDCL), Jammu
6. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
Jammu and Kashmir Power Transmission
Corporation Ltd. (J&K PTCL)
Jammu/Srinagar (Janipur Power House Jammu)
Lottery Building Behind, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar
7. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
Jammu Power Distribution
Corporation Ltd. (JPDCL), Jammu
8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Electric Maintenance &
Rural Electrification Division-I, (JPDCL) Udhampur
9. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Electric Maintenance &
Rural Electrification Division (JPDCL), Kathua
10. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Sub Transmission Division
(JPDCL) Udhampur.
11. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Transmission Line Maintenance Division- III,
(JPTCL) Udhampur
12. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Sub Transmission Division-III
(JPDCL) Kathua
13. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Electric Maintenance &
Rural Electrification Division-II,
(JPDCL) Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.
14. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Electric Maintenance &
Rural Electrification Division
(JPDCL) Kisthwar.
15. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Electric Maintenance &
Rural Electrification Division
(JPDCL) Rajouri.
16. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HARSHIT HARSHIT
YADAV YADAV
:: 8 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020
Electric Maintenance and
Rural Electrification Division- III,
(JPDCL) Rehari, Jammu
NON APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS
17. SANJAY GUPTA
S/o Shiv Ram Gupta
R/o Village Kohag Tehsil Billawar
District Kathua.
18. MANOJ KUMAR
S/o Rattan Pal
R/o Ward No 10, Hiranagar, District Kathua
19. KRISHAN PAL SINGH
S/o Bhajan Singh
R/o Village Jandi Tehsil Hiranagar
District Kathua
20. KULDEEP RAJ
S/o Chajju Ram
R/o Village Mela Tehsil Hiranagar
District Kathua
21. DAVINDER SINGH
S/o Shiv Ram Nag
R/o Atrana Kote Tehsil & District
Reasi
22. S. SUPINDER SINGH
S. Mohan Singh
R/o Jasrota Tehsil & District
Kathua.
23. SHAYAM LAL
S/o Amar Nath
R/o Dunga Tehsil Hiranagar District
Kathua
24. PAWAN KUMAR
S/o Pritam Dass
R/o Ward no. 4, Tehsil Hiranagar
District Kathua
25. SUBASH CHANDER
S/o Kartar Chand
R/o H.No EP 1025, Lower Mast Garh,
Jammu
HARSHIT HARSHIT
YADAV YADAV
:: 9 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020
26. RAKESH KUMAR
S/o Krishan Lal
R/o Village Dubsudan
Tehsil & District Jammu.
27. GULSHAN KUMAR
S/o Hem Raj
R/o 134, Jeewan Nagar, Jammu
28. BALBIR SINGH
S/o Gian Singh
R/o village Bathera
Tehsil & District Jammu
29. AJAY KUMAR
Krishan Lal
R/o Qtr No. 379/80 Rehari Colony
Jammu
30. VERINDER SINGH
S/o Amar Singh
R/o Domana Tehsil & District
Jammu
Proforma Respondents
(Through Advocate: Mr. Sudesh Magotra, Ld. AAG, Mr. Hunar
Gupta, learned D.A.G.)
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member This Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 by the applicants with the following relief(s):-
i. For setting aside the impugned letter/ Order No. CEJPDCL/MR/2692/837-57 dated 5.8.2020 issued by the respondents directing the recoveries to be made from the salaries of the applicants after making distrubance in the pay grades of the applicants resulting in lowering down of the pay grade of the applicants so attained by the applicants by virtue of the letter No. CEJPDCL/MR/2692/522-545 dated 5.6.2020, letter No. PDD/ Legal/13/2019 dated 23.6.2020, letter no. CEJPDCL/MR/2692/650-80 dated 29.6.2020 issued in compliance HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 10 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020 to the judgments passed in favour of applicants with all consequential pay revisions and the said impugned orders has been issued by the respondents without assigning any reason as well as without issuing the Show Cause notice in condemning the applicants unheard, thusNo. making the aforesaid impugned letter/ Order CEJPDCL/MR/2692/837- 57 dated 5.8.2020, illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
ii. Further commanding the respondents to release the salaries of the applicants in the same pay grades as has been attained by the applicants prior to the issuance of the aforesaid impugned orders while taking into count the benefits of the pay scale of Rs. 220-430 (Pre- revised) rectification into the without making any benefits incorporated in service record of the applicants and be paid with the salaries in the pay grades as they are getting consequential pay revisions attached to the designation on which with all the applicants are working as such till date for meeting the end of justice.
iii. For Restraining the respondents from making any disturbance of the benefits incorporated in the service records of the applicants and further restraining the respondents from making any recoveries from the applicants under the strength of the impugned letter/ Order No. CEJPDCL/MR/2692/837-57 dated 5.8.2020 as the said impugned orders is illegal and unconstitutional in the eyes of law having been passed by the respondents without show cause notice to the applicants were getting due process of law required under law. iv. Further restraining the respondents from distributing the initial placement of pay scale of Rs. 220-430 (pre-revised) so attained by the applicants in terms of the letter No. CEJPDCL/MR/2692/522-545 dated 5.6.2020, letter No. PDD/ Legal/13/2019 dated23.06.2020, letter no. CEJPDCL/MR/2692/650- 80 dated 29.6.2020 that too after the implementation of the Hon'ble Court directions passed in the various writ petitions filed by the applicants more particularly SWP no. 2339/2018 titled Sudesh Kumar & Ors v/s State of J&K & Ors, SWP no. 2299/2018 titled Altaf Hussain & Ors v/s State of J&K & Ors, SWP no. 2963/2019 titled" Vikash Kumar Sharma & Ors v/s State of J&K & Ors and SWP no. 2231/2018 titled Jarnail & Ors v/s State of J&K & Ors resulting in the bestowing of the pay scale of Rs. 220-430 (Pre-revised) with all subsequent consequential pay revisions for meeting the ends of justice. v. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems appropriate and considers the applicants entitled thereto be also issued.
3. The brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the present original application has been filed for setting aside the Impugned order No. CEJPDCL/MR/2692/837-57 dated 05.08.2020 with a further directions upon the respondents to release the salary of applicants in HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 11 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020 their respective pay scales attached to their Technician-III holding the initial placement as designations of Line Erectors, SBA and Electrician, Telephone Operator, Fitter Turbine Operator, Mechanic, Meter reader and cable jointer in the pay scale of Rs. 220- 430 (pre-revised) with all pay revisions from time to time from the date of their initial appointment/promotion on the designations of Line Erectors, SBA and Electrician, Telephone Operator, Fitter Turbine Operator, Meter Reader and Mechanic in light of judgment dated 29.07.2013 passed in LPA No. 58/2013 and clubbed matters titled State of J&K v/s Joginder Singh & Ors attained finality pursuant to the judgment dated 10.01.2018 passed in SLP No. 23074-75/2014 titled State of J&K & Ors v/s Javeed Ahmed Khan & Ors with the clubbed matters read with J&K Power Development Department (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1981 SRO 381 of 1981 dated 26.8.1981 also been directed vide judgment dated 27.7.2009 passed in LPA no. 142/2008 titled Chief Secretary to Govt. v/s Subash Chander & Ors confirming the judgment dated 26.2.2008 passed in SWP No. 2455/2001 duly been implemented vide Govt. Order 206-PDD of 2009 dated 13.10.2009 as has already been directed by this Hon'ble Court in passing the judgment dated 11.03.2014 in SWP no. 670/2014 titled Rajesh Kumar v/s State of J&K & Ors, judgment dated 21.2.2018 passed in SWP no. 1274/2014, judgment dated 28.5.2014 in SWP no. 2204/2010 titled Rajinder Singh & ors v/s State as well as judgment dated 25.2.2014 passed in SWP no. 1303/2010 titled Munish Chib & Ors v/s State & Ors, with further directions upon the respondents in restraining them HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 12 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020 from making any rectification in the service book record of the applicants coupled with not to disturb the rates of revised salary so attained by the applicants in the pay scale of Rs. 220-430 (pre-revised) in terms of judgments in their particular case passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in light of the aforesaid judgment.
That the applicants have been aggrieved of the impugned order/ letter No. CEJPDCL/MR/2692/837 -57 dated 5.8.2020 whereby the respondents have directed to effect recovery from the salaries of the applicants while branding the grant of the pay scale of Rs. 220-430 (pre- revised) to be the erroneous one which fact is in divergence to the true facts of the case, as the grant of the benefits so attained by the applicants herein in the pay scale of Rs. 220-430 (pre-revised) is in consonance with the rules read with the judgments so attained finality from the Apex court on the basis of which the similar directions has been issued in favour of the applicants in their writ petitions being SWP no. 2339/2018, SWP No. 2963/2019, SWP no. 2231/2018 and SWP No. 2299/2018 and in compliance to the same the benefit of pay scale of Rs 220-430 (pre-revised) has been granted to the applicants since the date of the placement of the applicants as Technician-III by way of appointment/ promotion in making the order/ letter No. CEJPDCL/MR/2692/837 -57 dated 5.8.2020 to be the illegal one not sustainable in the eyes of law deserves to be set aside/ recalled out rightly. In case the respondents are not restrained from effecting recovery from the salary of the applicants as well as restrained so HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 13 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020 granted in from the lowering down the pay scale favour of the applicants, the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated at any cost.
Hence the present original application.
4. By filing the objections, the respondents have submitted that those employees who have given the benefit of the higher pay grade i.e. Rs. 220-430 (pre-revised) who are the parties in the Special Leave Petition that was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the applicants being a fence-sitters and having not participated in the then proceedings cannot be now allowed to raise claim over a higher pay grade. Further submitted that now after lapse of almost 22 years, the applicants raising the claim over a higher pay grant which is already time barred by delay and latches. Hence, the impugned order is perfect in the eyes of law.
5. After perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that this order has been passed when applicants have filed writ petition(s) before the Hon'ble High Court seeking the similar benefits of judgment passed in LPA No. 58/2013 (Sate of J&K and another vs. Joginder Singh and others) and clubbed matters which had attained finality pursuant to the dismissal of the SLP No. 23074-23075/2014 (State of J&K and others vs. Javeed Ahmad Khan) and others read with J&K Power Development Department (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1981 and judgment passed in LPA No. 142/2008 upholding the judgment passed in SWP No. 2455/2001 dated 26.02.2008 which HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 14 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020 stands duly implemented vide Govt. Order No. 206-PDD dated 13.10.2009 and the Hon'ble High Court passed the order on 14.11.2018 with the following observation runs as follows:
"4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners, as projected in the writ petition, having regard to the judgment and recruitment rules referred to hereinabove as well as other judgments on the subject, provided the same are applicable to the case of petitioners. Let consideration be accorded strictly under rules, within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order along with complete set of writ petition is made available to the respondents by the petitioners against proper receipt.
5. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms along with the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any."
6. In compliance with the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court, the respondents have a take a different view that petitioners are being fence-sitters and have not party in the writ petitions/ SLP which have attained finality. Hence, they cannot be granted the similar benefits as have been granted to other petitioners like Javeed Ahmad Khan and other case and Joginder Singh and others case.
7. In the matter of Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel vs. Union of India and Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 2022], decided on 09th December, 2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court had categorically held that individuals need not file separate cases for relief granted to others in similar cases. The relevant para(s) are reproduced herein below:
"14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen 9 aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 15 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020 declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court. [See Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714]
15. In K.I. Shephard and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 431, this Court while reinforcing the above principle held as under:-
"19. The writ petitions and the appeals must succeed. We set aside the impugned judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and direct that each of the three transferee banks should take over the excluded employees on the same terms and conditions of employment under the respective banking companies prior to amalgamation. The employees would be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes including salary and perks throughout the period. We leave it open to the transferee banks to take such action as they consider proper against these employees in accordance with law. Some of the excluded employees have not come to court. There is no justification to penalise them for not having litigated. They too shall be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners. ...."
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. No doubt, in exceptional cases where the court has expressly prohibited the extension of the benefit to those who have not approached the court till then or in cases where a grievance in personam is redressed, the matter may acquire a different dimension, and the department may be justified in denying the relief to an individual who claims the extension of the benefit of the said judgment.
9. That is not the situation here. In the submissions too, the respondents have not been able to point out any valid justification as to how the applicants are treated differently except that applicants are HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 16 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020 not party in the judgment which has attained the finality. It is admitted fact while respondents have granted the benefits of the order of higher court to the similarly situated employees then why differentiate the applicants. This is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law being violative of the provisions of Article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
10. The respondent authorities on their own should have extended the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court/ Apex Court the similarly situated employees. Here applicants are claiming the similar benefits of the aforesaid judgment. Will it be fair to tell him that he will not be given relief even if he is similarly situated, since the judgment they seek to rely on, was passed in the case of certain applicants alone who moved the court? We think that would be a very unfair scenario. This Court would endorse an irrational position taken by the authorities if it accepted the respondents' position in this matter.
11. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih and Ors. Any recovery from the Class- IV and Class-III employee and the employee who is due to retire within one year is not permissible in law.
12. Hence, as per above discussions and law laid by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex, we are of the considered opinion that impugned order 05.08.2020 is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
HARSHIT HARSHIT
YADAV YADAV
:: 17 :: O.A. No. 61/527/2020
13. Accordingly, O.A. is allowed. Impugned order dated 05.08.2020 is quashed. Respondents are directed to give the pay scale of Rs. 220- 430 (pre-revised) with all consequential benefits to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. No costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Member (A) Member (J)
/JNS/
HARSHIT HARSHIT
YADAV YADAV