REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 193           OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10896 OF 2011)

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD  …. Appellants AND ANOTHER

VERSUS

THANA SINGH AND OTHERS        ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  arises  out  of  the  judgment  dated  28.09.2010

passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

dismissing  the  LPA  No.713  of  2010  on  the  ground  that  the

respondents-Sub Fire Officers are entitled to parity of scales of pay

as the pay scale granted/revised to other classes of posts within

same group viz., Group XII of the Punjab State Electricity Board.  

3.  Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Respondents  were  inducted  into  the  service  of  the  Punjab

State Electricity Board (PSEB) in the year 1978 and now they are

working as Sub Fire Officers in the appellant-Board. The pay scale

1

of the post of Sub Fire Officers was Rs.225-500 which was revised

with effect from 01.01.1978 to Rs.620-1200. Thereafter, by an order

dated 21.03.1989, the pay scale for the post of Sub Fire Officers

was revised to Rs.1640-2925 with effect from 01.01.1986 along with

the pay scales of  other category of  employees of  the Board viz.

Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal

Auditors were revised. Subsequently, by an order dated 03.10.1990,

the pay scale of Head Clerks was revised from Rs.1640-2925 to

Rs.2000-3500  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Pay  Anomaly

Committee.  Likewise, by the same order dated 03.10.1990, the pay

scale  of  the  Internal  Auditors  was  revised  to  the  scale  of

Rs.1800-3200; but the pay scale of the Sub Fire Officers was not

revised  on  par  with  Head  Clerks  and  Internal  Auditors.  A

recommendation  letter  dated  25.03.1991  was  written  by  the

Superintendent Engineer, GNDTP, Bhatinda to the Chief Engineer,

GNDTP, Bhatinda to consider the case of the Sub Fire Officers to

grant scale of pay on par with Head Clerks and Internal Auditors

stating that there will not be much financial burden, if the pay scales

of Sub Fire Officers are revised equal to other categories as only

five number of posts of Sub Fire Officers exist at GNDTP, Bhatinda

and RTP, Ropar. Relying on the said letter dated 25.03.1991 of the

Superintendent Engineer, GNDTP, Bhatinda, the respondents-Sub

2

Fire  Officers  submitted  various  representations  to  the  appellant-

Board requesting for higher pay scale on the ground that the pay

scale  to  the  post  of  Sub  Fire  Officers  in  the  Punjab  State

Government  Department  i.e.  Fire  Protection  Department  is

Rs.1800-3200  and  therefore,  the  respondents-Sub  Fire  Officers

working in the appellant-Board are also to be given same scale of

pay.  

4. The  respondents-Sub  Fire  Officers  filed  CWP  No.9294  of

1993 stating that the action of the appellant-Board in granting pay

scale  less  than  the  State  Government  employees  is  illegal,

unjustified,  discriminatory  and  violative  of  Article  14  of  the

Constitution  of  India.  According  to  the  respondents,  there  is  no

difference  in  qualification  for  recruitment  to  the post  of  Sub Fire

Officers  between  the  Board  and  the  State  Government  and

therefore,  there  should  not  be  any  difference  in  the  pay  scale

between them.

5. The  appellant-Board  filed  counter  affidavit  stating  that  the

Board is not bound to pay the same pay scale to the respondents-

Sub Fire Officers as are given by the Punjab Government  to  its

employees holding the same post. It was averred that Punjab State

Electricity Board is a statutory body constituted under the Electricity

3

Supply Act governed by its own regulations.  It was averred that the

respondents-Sub  Fire  Officers  cannot  claim  parity  with  other

categories  viz.  Head  Clerks,  Head  Clerk-cum-Divisional

Accountants, Internal Auditors, etc. because all these posts belong

to  different  cadre  than  the  cadre  of  the  respondents-Sub  Fire

Officers  as  the  nature  of  work,  duties,  responsibilities  and  initial

qualifications for recruitment to these posts are different.  

6. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that

the  Sub  Fire  Officers  are  within  Group  XII  that  included  Head

Clerks,  Head Clerk-cum-Divisional  Accountants,  Internal  Auditors,

etc. therefore, Sub Fire Officers cannot be denied same scales of

pay when increased for other three classes of persons within Group

XII. However, the learned Single Judge rejected the respondent’s

plea claiming parity with the employees of the State Government.

Observing that the respondents are to be treated on par with other

three  classes  within  Group  XII  of  the  Board,  the  learned  Single

Judge allowed the writ petition.  

7. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal

filed  by  the  appellant-Board  holding  that  there  is  no  basis  for

differently treating the Sub Fire Officers included in Group XII. The

Division Bench has referred to the letter dated 25.03.1991 of the

4

Superintendent Engineer, GNDTP, Bhatinda stating that the cadre of

Sub Fire Officers is a small one with limited chances of promotion to

the higher posts i.e. Fire Officers and that by revising the scale of

Sub Fire Officers on par with others, there will not be much financial

burden  on  the  Board.   Being  aggrieved,  the  appellant-Board  is

before us.  

8. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior counsel for the appellant-

Board has submitted that the respondents-Sub Fire Officers cannot

claim parity  with  other  categories  viz.  Head Clerks,  Head Clerk-

cum-Divisional  Accountants,  Internal  Auditors,  etc.  because  all

these posts belong to different cadre and the mode of recruitment

and the nature of duties and responsibilities are entirely different. It

was submitted that though the post of Sub Fire Officers is included

in Group XII, the nature of duties and responsibilities to each post in

Group  XII  are  different  and  the  respondents-Sub  Fire  Officers

cannot  claim  parity  of  pay  scales  with  other  posts  in  the  same

group.  It  was  contended that  the  learned  Single  Judge  erred  in

saying  that  merely  because  the  post  of  Sub  Fire  Officers  is

categorised in Group XII, they are to be treated on par with other

categories of posts in Group XII. It was urged that if the impugned

5

judgment is to be sustained, it will have huge financial implications

on the appellant-Board and the same is not sustainable.

9. Mr.  Jaspal  Singh  M.,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents

supporting the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as of

the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  submitted  that  since  the

respondents  are  included  in  Group  XII,  there  cannot  be  any

discrimination in the scales of pay. It was submitted that when the

scales of pay were increased for other three classes of posts within

Group XII, similar revision of scale of pay ought to have been given

to the respondents also and the learned Single Judge as well as the

Division Bench rightly ordered the parity in scale of pay.

10. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused

the impugned judgment and the materials on record. The following

points arise for consideration in this appeal:-

(i) Whether Sub Fire Officers can claim parity of pay scale

with pay scale of Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional

Accountants, Internal Auditors, etc. merely on the ground

that the post of Sub Fire Officers is categorised in Group

XII?

(ii) Whether respondents are right in contending that grant

of  different  scale  of  pay  to  Sub  Fire  Officers  is

discrimination  and  in  violation  of  Article  14  of  the

Constitution of India?

6

11. It is fairly well settled that equation of pay scales must be left

to the Government and on the decision of the experts and the Court

should not interfere with it.  Observing that equation of pay scales of

posts  must  be left  to  the Government  and the experts,  in  Steel

Authority  of  India  Limited  and  Others  v.  Dibyendu

Bhattacharya (2011) 11 SCC 122, this Court held as under:-

“26. In Union of India and Others v. S.L. Dutta and Another (1991) 1 SCC 505,  Union of India and Others v.  N.Y. Apte and Others (1998) 6 SCC 741, State of U.P. and Others v. J.P. Chaurasia and Others (1989) 1 SCC 121 and Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma and Others  (2001)  1 SCC 353,  this  Court  held that  the determination that two posts are equal or not, is a job of the Expert Committee  and  the  court  should  not  interfere  with  it  unless  the decision of the Committee is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary or made on extraneous considerations. More so, it is an executive function  to  fix  the  service  conditions,  etc.  and  lies  within  the exclusive  domain  of  the  rule-making  authority.  (See  also  T. Venkateswarulu v. Executive  Officer,  Tirumala  Tirupathi Devasthanams and Others (2009) 1 SCC 546.)”

12. In  S.C.  Chandra  and  Others  v.  State  of  Jharkhand  and

Others (2007) 8 SCC 279, observing that the grant of pay scales is

a purely executive function and the court should not interfere with the

same, this Court held as under:-

“33. It  may  be  mentioned  that  granting  pay  scales  is  a  purely executive function and hence the court should not interfere with the same. It may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for  the  Government  and  authorities.  Hence,  the  court  should exercise  judicial  restraint  and  not  interfere  in  such  executive function  vide  Indian  Drugs & Pharmaceuticals  Ltd. v.  Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408. ……….. 35. In  our  opinion  fixing  pay  scales  by  courts  by  applying  the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State.  Realising  this,  this  Court  has  in  recent  years  avoided

7

applying the principle of equal pay for equal work,  unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too  the  matter  should  be  sent  for  examination  by  an  Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the court itself granting higher pay).”

13. Observing that granting parity in pay scales depends upon the

comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts, this Court, in

SAIL, held as under:-

“30. ……….. the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that  parity  of  pay  can  be  claimed  by  invoking  the  provisions  of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India by establishing that the eligibility, mode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality of work  and  duties  and  effort,  reliability,  confidentiality,  dexterity, functional need and responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical.  The  functions  may  be  the  same  but  the  skills  and responsibilities may be really and substantially different. The other post may not require any higher qualification, seniority or other like factors.  Granting  parity  in  pay  scales  depends  upon  the comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts. The person claiming parity, must plead necessary averments and prove that all things are equal  between the posts concerned. Such a complex issue cannot be adjudicated by evaluating the affidavits filed by the parties.”

14. In the light of the above principles, the case of Sub Fire Officers

in PSEB requires to be examined whether they are entitled to parity in

pay scales as that  of  the Head  Clerks,  Head Clerk-cum-Divisional

Accountants, Internal Auditors, etc.  PSEB is an autonomous body

constituted by Notification of the Punjab Government under Section 5

of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and the services under PSEB are

governed  by  the  Punjab  State  Electricity  Board  (Revised  Pay)

Regulations,  1988.  The First  Schedule  relates to  categorisation of

various  groups and revised  scales  of  pay for  categories  specified

8

thereunder. Group XII as it then stood in the year 1988 contains Sub

Fire Officers which reads as under:-

Group-XII : Scale: 1500-30-1560-40-2000-50-2400-60-2700-75-2925

1. Internal Auditor 620-1200 1500-2925

2. Head Clerk -do- -do-

3. Head  Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountant

-do- -do-

4. Sub Fire Officer -do- -do-

15. In the year 1988, though the post of Sub Fire Officers has been

included in Group XII in one category as that of Head Clerks, Head

Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors, the nature of

work, duties, responsibilities and initial qualifications for recruitment

and manner of recruitment to each post are different since all these

posts belong to different cadre.  The respondents cannot claim as a

matter of right that they should be given the similar pay scale as are

given to the categories of posts such as Head Clerks, Head Clerk-

cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors.

16. For considering the equation of posts, the following factors had

been held to be determinative:-

1.  The nature and duties of a post;

2.  The  responsibilities  and  powers  exercised  by  the  officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;

3. The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and

4.  The salary of the post (vide Union of India and Another v. P.K. Roy and Others AIR 1968 SC 850).

9

17. After referring to P.K. Roy’s case, this Court, in SAIL, held as

under:-

“25. In  State of Maharashtra and Another v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Others  (1981) 4 SCC 130 and  Vice-Chancellor,  L.N. Mithila University v. Dayanand Jha (1986) 3 SCC 7, a similar view has been reiterated observing  that  equal  status  and nature  and responsibilities of the duties attached to the two posts have to be taken into consideration for equivalence of the post. Similar view has been reiterated in  E.P. Royappa v.  State of T.N. and Another (1974)  4  SCC  3  and  Sub-Inspector  Rooplal and  Another  v. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Others (2000) 1 SCC 644, wherein this Court following the earlier judgment in  P.K. Roy AIR 1968 SC 850 held that the salary of the post alone may not be a  determining  factor,  the  other  three  criterion  should  also  be fulfilled.”

18. The  duties  and  nature  of  work  of  Head  Clerks  and  Internal

Auditors are entirely different. Head Clerk works under XEN, Drawing

and Disbursement Officer and there is only one Head Clerk in the

Division Office. Head Clerk is the Head of the establishment in the

Divisional  Office  and  total  work  of  the  establishment  is  under  the

control of the Head Clerk. Head Clerk also maintains the leave and

other  miscellaneous  works  for  the  Sub-divisions  and  the  Division

Offices and also discharges administrative functions and thus,  has

more responsibilities.  Duty of an Internal Auditor is to audit the billing

of the Revenue Department of the Sub-division Office which includes

billing of domestic supply to large supply.  Whereas the duty of the

Sub  Fire  Officer  is  entirely  different  viz.,  rush  to  the  spot  of

10

emergency  along  with  firefighting  equipment  crew,  direct  and

supervise  firefighting and  rescue operations,  arrange for  extra  fire

fighting  equipments,  if  need  be  discharge  mechanical  foam,  dry

chemical powder, etc. and inform the fire pump house for continuous

running of pumps and also inform Fire Officer/Sr.Xen/Fire and Safety

regarding incident. Thus, the work performed by the Sub Fire Officer

is entirely different from the nature of duties performed by the Head

Clerks and the Internal Auditors.

19. The appellant-Board being an autonomous body governed by

its  own  regulations,  it  was  for  the  Board  to  classify  its

employees/posts  on  the  basis  of  qualifications,  duties  and

responsibilities  of  the  posts  concerned.  If  the  classification  has

reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, the Board

would be justified in prescribing different pay scales. Article 14 of the

Constitution of India would be applicable only when a discrimination

is made out between the persons who are similarly situated and not

otherwise. It is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay to prove

and establish that they have been discriminated. In State of Haryana

and Another v. Tilak Raj and Others (2003) 6 SCC 123, this Court

held  that  “to  claim  a  relief  on  the  basis  of  equality,  it  is  for  the

claimants  to  substantiate  a  clear-cut  basis  of  equivalence  and  a

11

resultant  hostile  discrimination  before  becoming  eligible  to  claim

rights  on  a  par  with  the  other  group  vis-à-vis  an  alleged

discrimination.”

20. The person claiming parity must produce material  before the

court to prove that the nature of duties and functions are similar and

that they are entitled to parity of pay scales. After referring to number

of judgments and observing that it is the duty of an employee seeking

parity of pay to prove and establish that he had been discriminated

against, this Court, in SAIL, held as under:-

“22. It is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India to prove and establish that he had been  discriminated  against,  as  the  question  of  parity  has  to  be decided on consideration of various facts and statutory rules, etc. The  doctrine  of  “equal  pay  for  equal  work”  as  enshrined  under Article 39(d) of the Constitution read with Article 14 thereof, cannot be  applied  in  a  vacuum.  The  constitutional  scheme  postulates equal pay for equal work for those who are equally placed in all respects. The court must consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of work,  the  value  thereof,  responsibilities,  reliability,  experience, confidentiality,  functional  need,  etc.  In  other  words,  the  equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesome/wholesale identity between the holders of two posts. The burden of establishing right and parity in employment is only on the person claiming such right. (Vide U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. and Another v. Sant Raj Singh and Others (2006) 9 SCC 82, Union of  India and  Another  v.  Mahajabeen  Akhtar  (2008)  1  SCC 368, Union of India v.  Dineshan K.K (2008) 1 SCC 586,  Union of India and Others v. Hiranmoy Sen and Others (2008) 1 SCC 630, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1, U.P. SEB and Another  v.  Aziz Ahmad  (2009) 2 SCC 606  and  State of M.P. and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009) 13 SCC 635)”.

21. Burden of establishing parity in pay scale and employment is

on the person claiming such right. There were neither pleadings nor

12

any material produced by the respondents to prove that the nature

of work performed by the Sub Fire Officers is similar with that of the

Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors to claim parity of pay scale.

As pointed out earlier, the burden lies upon the party who claims

parity of pay scale to prove similarity in duties and responsibilities.

In  the writ  petition,  respondents have only claimed parity  of  pay

scale  with  those  of  the  employees  working  under  the  Punjab

Government which was not accepted by the learned Single Judge.

Determination of parity or disparity in duties and responsibilities is a

complex  issue  and the  same should  be  left  to  the  expert  body.

When the expert body considered revision of pay for various posts,

it did not revise the pay scale of Sub Fire Officers. When the expert

body has taken such a view, it is not for the courts to substitute its

views and interfere with the same and take a different view.  

22. As pointed out  earlier,  though the Head Clerks,  Head Clerk-

cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors were earlier placed

in  the  same  group  viz.  Group  XII;  but  educational  qualifications

requisite  for  these  posts  and  mode  of  recruitment  are  different.

Likewise,  there  is  no  similarity  in  the  work  performed  by  the

employees on those posts. Only in cases of complete similarity in the

nature  of  work,  duties,  responsibilities  and  promotional  channels,

13

parity of pay scale can be claimed.  Merely on the ground that Sub

Fire Officers are categorised in Group XII  along with Head Clerks,

Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors cannot

be a  ground for  seeking parity  of  pay scale.  As submitted by the

learned Senior counsel for the appellant-Board, the nature of work,

duties, responsibilities and initial qualification for recruitment of each

post are entirely different as all these posts belong to different cadre.

23. That apart, though in the year 1988 there were only four posts

in  Group  XII,  number  of  several  posts  have  been  subsequently

included.  Vide Finance Circular  No.44/89 dated 15.06.1989, seven

more  posts  were  added  in  Group  XII.  Thereafter,  vide Finance

Circular No.45/89 dated 26.06.1989, there was a further increase of

seven posts in Group XII. The fourteen posts which were added to

Group  XII  are:-  Punjabi  Teacher,  Drawing  Teacher,  Hindi  Teacher,

D.P.Ed.  Teacher,  Master/Mistress,  Science  Teacher,  Security

Inspector, Modeller Divisional Head Draftsman, Prosecuting Inspector

(now Law Officer), Law Officer Grade II, Medical Assistant, Librarian

and Fire Officer, etc.         At the time of the issuance of order dated

03.10.1990 revising the scale of  pay of  Head Clerks,  Head Clerk-

cum-Divisional Accountants, Internal Auditors etc., there were various

posts included in Group XII. For all these posts, source and mode of

14

recruitment, qualifications and nature of work are entirely different. If

the contention of the Sub Fire Officers for parity of pay scale with pay

scale  of  Head Clerks,  Head Clerk-cum-Divisional  Accountants and

Internal Auditors is accepted, such parity of scale of pay may have to

be extended to all other posts in Group XII which would involve huge

financial repercussion on the finance of the Board which is a service-

oriented institution. The High Court, in our view, erred in not keeping

in view the financial consequences of the direction to give parity of

pay scale to the Sub Fire Officers. As held in  Union of India and

Another v. Manik Lal Banerjee (2006) 9 SCC 643, “it is now a well

settled principle of law that financial implication is a relevant factor for

accepting the revision of pay.”

24. Before the learned Single Judge, the respondents relied upon

the letter written by the Superintendent Engineer, GNDTP, Bhatinda

to  the  Chief  Engineer,  GNDTP,  Bhatinda  dated  25.03.1991  to

consider the request of Sub Fire Officers for parity of pay scale with

pay scale  of  Head Clerks,  Head Clerk-cum-Divisional  Accountants

and Internal Auditors.  As rightly contended by the appellant-Board,

the letter  was written only on the ground that  there would  not  be

much financial burden. But the said letter does not indicate any parity

of nature of work, responsibilities, functional need, etc. The said letter

15

of the Superintendent Engineer, GNDTP, Bhatinda also did not take

note  of  other  various  categories  of  posts  included  in  Group  XII.

Referring to the said letter dated 25.03.1991 of the Superintendent

Engineer, GNDTP, Bhatinda, the learned Single Judge observed that

the plea of the respondents for parity of pay scale was supported by

the Superintendent Engineer. The learned Single Judge did not keep

in view the well factors like source, mode of recruitment, nature of

work, etc. for the post of Sub Fire Officers and the Head Clerks, Head

Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors.

25. In the writ petition, the respondents have taken the plea that

they are entitled to the scale of pay on par with the employees of the

Punjab Government in parity of the wages.  Nature of work performed

by those in the service of Punjab Government are different from those

in service of the Board, the learned Single Judge rightly refused to

accept the plea of the respondents claiming parity with the employees

of the State Government.

26. The  learned  Single  Judge,  however,  proceeded  under  the

erroneous  footing  that  merely  because  Sub  Fire  Officers  were

categorised in Group XII, they were entitled parity of scale of pay with

pay scale  of  Head Clerks,  Head Clerk-cum-Divisional  Accountants

and Internal Auditors.  Inclusion of posts of Sub Fire Officers in Group

16

XII  may  not  be  a  determinative  factor  to  hold  that  the  Sub  Fire

Officers  are  equal  with  Head  Clerks,  Head  Clerk-cum-Divisional

Accountants, and Internal Auditors. Mere difference in pay scale does

not always amount to discrimination; it  depends upon the mode of

selection/recruitment, nature, quality of work and duties and that the

status of both the posts are identical. Observing that it is not always

impermissible to provide two different pay scales in the same cadre,

this Court, in SAIL, held as under:-

“29. It  is  a  settled  legal  proposition  that  it  is  not  always impermissible to provide two different pay scales in the same cadre on  the  basis  of  selection  based  on  merit  with  due  regard  to experience and seniority.  (Vide  State  of  U.P.  and Others  v.  J.P. Chaurasia and Others (1989) 1 SCC 121 and Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Others (1989) 2 SCC 235.) “Non-uniformities would not in all  events violate Article 14.” Thus, a mere difference does not always amount to discrimination. (Vide  Madhu  Kishwar and  Others  v.  State  of  Bihar  and  Others (1996)  5  SCC 125,  Associate  Banks Officers’ Assn. v.  SBI  and Others (1998) 1 SCC 428 and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1)”.

27. Respondents  have  not  produced  any  material  to  show  that

there is any similarity/identity between the posts of Sub Fire Officers

and the Head Clerks,  Head Clerk-cum-Divisional  Accountants  and

Internal  Auditors  in  terms  of  the  nature  of  duties,  responsibilities,

qualifications and mode of recruitment etc. to apply the principle of

parity of pay scale.  The learned Single Judge did not keep in view

that the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by the Sub

Fire Officers are different and parity cannot be claimed merely on the

17

ground that they are categorised in one group.  The judgment of the

learned Single  Judge and the  impugned judgment  of  the  Division

Bench cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.

28. In the result, the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2010 passed

by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  LPA

No.713 of 2010 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. Pursuant to

the interim order of the Supreme Court, if any amount over and above

the salary payable has been paid, the same may not be recovered

from the respondents and other Sub Fire Officers.

…..………………….J.                                                                           [R. BANUMATHI]

…..………………………J.                                                                      [INDIRA BANERJEE]

New Delhi; January 08, 2019

18