JAI BHAGWAN Vs. BHAKHRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is to the order dated 24.8.2015 (Annexure P/9) passed by respondent no.2 whereby while ordering recovery from the petitioner the order dated 10.2.2015 (Annexure P/1) was upheld.

(2.) The said authority had been asked to reconsider the issue in an earlier direction passed by this Court vide order dated 20.7.2015 (Annexure P/8) passed in Civil Writ Petition No.14316 of 2015 keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. 2015(1) RSJ 177. The reasoning which had been given to stand by the earlier order is that the petitioner had been granted second time bound promotional scale with effect from 15.9.1995 and had been granted two increments with effect from the said date whereas he was entitled to only one increment after adjusting the previous benefit of proficiency step up drawn on 15.9.1987 which erroneously was not adjusted. Resultantly, it was held that the fixation of pay vide office orders dated 10.2.2015 and 26.2.2015 (Annexures P/2 and P/3) and recovery which had been ordered with effect from 15.9.1995 which was worked out to Rs. 1,79,463/- out of which a sum of Rs. 46,310/- had already been recovered from the salary of the petitioner for the month of July, 2015 by the Executive Engineer, Hydrology Division, BBMB, Nangal were justified. Another aspect which was kept in mind was that the petitioner had retired from service as Assistant Design Engineer (Class-II Gazetted Officer). He was going to receive Rs. 35.43 lakhs (Approximately) out of which Rs. 7.61 lakhs were on account of leave encashment, Rs. 9.81 lakhs as DCRG and Rs. 18.01 lakhs as GPF amount from his parent department as well as from the respondent-Board on account of his retiral dues. Therefore, there would be no hardship to the petitioner to pay the amount of recovery of Rs. 1,79,463/-. Resultantly, the judgment of the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih 's case (Supra) was distinguished by passing the impugned order.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has restricted his argument to the extent that he would be satisfied if the order is quashed to the extent that recovery is permissible and does not challenge the impugned order qua entitlement of increment on the basis of which recovery is being effected.