R.C. JAIN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were working in the Industrial Facilitation Unit called the Udyog Sahayak. Vide notification dated March 30, 1981, a copy of which has been produced on the record as Annexure P-1, it was directed that ''the officers nominated to Udyog Sahayak - shall continue to be borne on the establishments of their respective parents organisations. They shall be eligible to draw pay and allowances as admissible to them in their respective parents organisations plus a special pay of 20% basic pay per month subject to a maximum of Rs. 300/-.'' Vide letter dated July 24, 1981, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition, it was clarified that ''this provision has been made keeping in view the very arduous nature of the duties they will be called upon to perform.'' On May 31, 1982, the State Government ordered that only 'Rs. a special pay of 10 per cent of basic pay subject to a maximum of Rs. 200/- per month will be allowed to the officers/officials manning the Institution of Udyog Sahayak.'' It was further ordered that ''the change will be effective from the date of issue of earlier notification.'' Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners submitted representations. In spite of recommendation by the Director of Industries, the Government declined the request vide letter dated September 10, 1984 Thereafter, on November 26, 1984. instructions for the recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioners were issued. Consequently, they filed the present petition with a prayer that the notification dated May 31, 1982 (Annexure P-6 with the writ petition) and the orders dated September 10, 1984) and November 26, 1984 (Annexures P-8 and P-9 respectively with the writ petition) be quashed. The prayer for the stay of the recovery was also made. The writ petition was admitted. Recovery was stayed by the Motion Bench.

(2.) The respondents contest the petitioners' claim. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the benefit of special pay was conferred on the employees with retrospective effect. Consequently, even the order for withdrawal has been made effective from an earlier date.

(3.) It is true that rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution can be enforced retrospectively. However, it is settled law that an executive order which is to the prejudice of an employee cannot be enforced with retrospective effect. Reference in this behalf may be made to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ex-Major N.C. Singhal v. Director General, Armed Forces, Medical Services, 1972 AIR(SC) 628and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Daljit Singh Narula and others v. The State of Haryana and others, 1979 1 SLR 420.