IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

311

Decided on : 13.11.2025

1. CWP-14605-2021

AHAMMED ANWAR SIDATH AND ORS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

2. CWP-9553-2022

MANOJ KUMAR GURJAR AND ORS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

3. CWP-16706 -2021

SATYAVEER SINGH DAGUR AND ORS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

4. CWP-21787 -2022

SUSHIL MATORIA AND ORS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

5. CWP-11440-2022

SUBHASH CHAND YADAV AND ORS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

6.. CWP-12452-2022

CWP-14605-2021 and

connected petitions -2-

NARENDRA KUMAR YADAV . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

7. CWP-13180-2022

PAVITRA AND ANR . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

8. CWP-13201-2022

JAISON K JOY AND ANR . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

9. CWP-13518-2022

VEENA F CHAND AND ANR . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

10. CWP-9553-2022

MANOJ KUMAR GURJAR AND ORS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

11. CWP-14479-2022

ASHA RANI AND ORS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

CWP-14605-2021 and

connected petitions -3-

12. CWP-15186-2022

JAI PRAKASH SHARMA AND ORS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

13. CWP-15331-2022

VISHNU KUMAR JANGID AND ORS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

14. CWP-15409-2022

LAKHWINDER KAUR AND ORS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

15. CWP-15616-2022

NARINDER KAUR AND OTHERS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

16. CWP-15655-2022

ISHA SHARMA AND OTHERS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

17. CWP-15973-2022

SUNIL KUMAR AND OTHERS . .Petitioners

Versus

CWP-14605-2021 and

connected petitions -4-

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

18. CWP-15977-2022

RISHI KUMAR AND OTHERS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

19. CWP-16149-2022

VARUN SEN AND ORS. . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

20. CWP-16887-2022

NARSHI RAM AND OTHERS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

21. CWP-18528-2022

GEETA DEVI AND OTHERS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

22. CWP-18736-2022

SANDEEP GILL AND OTHERS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

CWP-14605-2021 and

connected petitions -5-

23. CWP-18764-2022

KIRAN BALA AND OTHERS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

24. CWP-18810-2022

MANPREET KAUR AND OTHERS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

25. CWP-19311-2022

HARDEEP KAUR AND ORS. . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

26. CWP-19497 -2022

SONIA AND ORS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

27. CWP-21777-2022

KANCHAN KUMARI AND ORS. . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

28. CWP-22776-2022

ANOOP P.V. AND OTHERS . .Petitioners

Versus

CWP-14605-2021 and

connected petitions -6-

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

29. CWP-23137 -2022

DEEPAK KUMAR AND OTHERS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

30. CWP-24137 -2022

MONIKA SEHGAL AND ANOTHER . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

31. CWP-2513 -2022

PREM SHANKAR MALAV AND OTHERS . .Petitioners

Versus

DIRECTOR, POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL

EDUCATION AND RESEARCH AND OTHERS

. . . Respondents

32. CWP-2742 -2022

KARAMJIT KAUR GREWAL AND ORS . .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

33. CWP-29701 -2022

NEETU . .Petitioner

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

CWP-14605-2021 and

connected petitions -7-

34. CWP-3605 -2022

SEEMA . .Petitioner

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

35. CWP-5174 -2022

SULINDER KAUR AND ORS .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

36. CWP-6548-2022

VINOD KUMAR AND ORS .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

37. CWP-7787-2022

ANJNA SHARMA AND OTHERS .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

38. CWP-7881-2022

KULWANT KAUR BADGAL AND ORS .Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. . . Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

CWP-14605-2021 and

connected petitions -8-

PRESENT: Mr. Barjesh Mittal, Advocate with

Ms. Sukhmanjot Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners in

CWP-14605-2021 and

CW-16706 of 2021

Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate,

Mr. Risham Raag Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner in CWP-5174-2022.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioners in CWP-2742 of 2022, CWP-15616 of 2022.

Mr. Shashi Kumar Yadav, Advocate for petitioners

in CWP-11440 of 2022, CWP-19311 of 2022, CWP-24137 of

2022, CWP-22776 of 2022, CWP-18578-2022, CWP-13201-

2022, CWP-13180 of 2022, CWP-7881-2022.

Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioners

in CWP-15973, 15977, 16149, 15186, 9553, 6548 of 2022.

Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for

Mr. S. S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners

in CWP-29701-2022.

Mr. Rajiv Sharma (Hissar Wale) Senior Panel Counsel

for UOI/PGI with

Mr. Vinayak, Advocate for respondents No. 1 & 2.

Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate for the petitioners

in CWP-19497-2022.

Mr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners

in CWP-2513-2022.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

1. Present bunch of petitions, the details of which are

mentioned in the heading, involve common point of law and

common set of facts, hence, they are being dealt together. For the

CWP-14605-2021 and

connected petitions -9-

sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP-14605-

2021.

2. Replies filed by the respondents are taken on record.

3. In the present bunch of petitions, the challenge is to the

impugned order dated 09.04.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh

(herein after referred to as ‘The Tribunal’) in the Original

Application bearing No. 060/478/2020 filed by the petitioners

against the order dated 16.07.2020 (Annexure A-1)and for direction

to the respondents to treat office order dated 25.05.2019 as final

regarding grant of fixation of initial pay of nursing personnel in

the revised pay structure as Rs. 14,460/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as well

as the order dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by the

PGIMER is under challenge, by which orders, the benefit extended

to the petitioners vide letter dated 25.05.2019 (Annexure A-10

with aforesaid OA) has been sought to be kept in abeyance and

their status has been reversed to the position that existed prior to

the passing of the order dated 16.07.2020 (Annexure A-1) thereby

withdrawing the benefit extended to the petitioners vide letter

dated 25.05.2019 (Annexure A-10) with regard to a particular pay-

scale in view of the recommendation of the 6

th

pay commission.

4. The Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioners on the

CWP-14605-2021 and

connected petitions -10-

ground that the Ministry of Finance has already clarified the

position for the implementation of the 6

th

Central Pay Commission

in view of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008,

which are to be implemented w.e.f.01.01.2006 and therefore, the

withdrawal of the benefit by the impugned order dated 16.07.2020

(Annexure A-1) has been upheld.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

argues that any benefits which has been given to employees and the

grant of the said benefit has already been implemented, the same

cannot be withdrawn without affording any opportunity of hearing

to them so that they can project their views qua the proposed

withdrawal of the said benefits, in case the same is to be withdrawn

by the employer-department.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that

even if the extended benefit in pursuance to the order dated

25.05.2019 are to be withdrawn on any basis, including on account

of any clarification received subsequently, the same ought to have

been placed before the employees concerned for their comments

and it is only thereafter, any action can be taken subject to the reply

so filed to the proposed action of the employer.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that

in the present case, firstly, the relief was granted to the employees

CWP-14605-2021 and

connected petitions -11-

vide letter dated 25.05.2019 (Annexure A-10) but after a period of

one year, the same was ordered to be kept in abeyance and the

benefits so granted to the employees concerned was sought to be

withdrawn so as to recover the amount already paid to the

petitioners-employees and the Tribunal dismissed the petition on

the ground that the same was done on the clarification received

from the Ministry, which clarification was never communicated to

the petitioners for their objections/information and therefore, the

orders passed by the Tribunal are causing prejudice to the

petitioners being violative of the principle of natural justice and

therefore, keeping in view the settled principle of law on the said

issue, the order placing in abeyance the letter dated 25.05.2019

(Annexure A-10) may kindly be set-aside.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents -UOI and PGI

submits that though, the benefit was given with regard to re-

fixation of pay in the Nursing Cadre on 25.05.2019 (Annexure

A-10) which action was taken keeping in view the

recommendation of the 6

th

Central Pay Commission which was to

be implemented from 01.01.2006, but subsequently, the same was

reviewed in light of the clarification later received from the

competent authorities. It is submitted that upon such clarification, it

was found that the benefits which were extended to the petitioners

on 25.05.2019 (Annexure A-10) were not correct, hence , the

CWP-14605-2021 and

connected petitions -12-

impugned order passed withdrawing the said benefits and directing

recovery of the excess amount paid was justified, as the benefits

had been granted erroneously.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that

once, the clarification from the Union of India has been received

and it was found that the petitioners were not entitled for the said

relief, the benefit was rightly withdrawn from them, which action

has rightly been upheld by the Tribunal while passing the order

dated 09.04.2021 (Annexure P-5), hence, the present petitions may

kindly be dismissed.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

gone through the case file with their able assistance.

11. The first question which arises before this Court for

determination keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the

present case is whether, any benefit already extended to an

employee can be withdrawn without affording him/her an

opportunity of hearing?

12. The law in this regard is well settled

by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2265 of 2011 titled as Chamoli

District Co-operative Bank Ltd through its Secretary/Mahaprandhak and

another vs. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, 2016(12) SCC 204, decided

on 17.05.2016.

CWP-14605-2021 and

connected petitions -13-

The relevant paragraph of the Chamoli's case (supra) is as

under:-

“19. The compliance of natural justice in

domestic/disciplinary inquiry is necessary has long been

established. This Court has held that even there are no

specific statutory rule requiring observance of natural

justice, the compliance of natural justice is necessary.

Certain ingredients have been held to be constituting

integral part of holding of an inquiry. The Apex Court

in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Their

Workmen reported in (1964) 3 SCR 616 has laid down

following:-

“... An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly

held unless, (i) the employee proceeded against has

been informed clearly of the charges levelled against

him, (ii) the witnesses are examined – ordinarily in the

presence of the employee – in respect of the charges,

(iii) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross-

examine witnesses, (iv) he is given a fair opportunity to

examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he

so wishes on any relevant matter, and (v) the inquiry

officer records his findings with reasons for the same in

CWP-14605-2021 and

connected petitions -14-

his report.”

13. Further , as per the settled principle of law as settled by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while passing the judgment in Civil Appeal

No. 9417 of 2019 titled as M/s Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and another

vs. State of U.P. and another 2019 (12) JT 283, decided on 13.12.2019

wherein it has been held that where any order passed by the authority

concerned causes prejudice to an employee, particularly involving financial

liability, the employee must be afforded an opportunity of hearing and no

order causing prejudice to an employee can be passed by an employer

unilaterally. The relevant para of Daffodills Pharmaceuticals's case (supra)

is as under:-

“15. In the present case, even if one assumes that

Surender Chaudhary, the accused in the pending

criminal case was involved and had sought to indulge in

objectionable activities, that ipso facto could not have

resulted in unilateral action of the kind which the State

resorted to- against Daffodils, which was never granted

any opportunity of hearing or a chance to represent

against the impugned order. If there is one constant

lodestar that lights the judicial horizon in this country, it

is this: that no one can be inflicted with an adverse

CWP-14605-2021 and

connected petitions -15-

order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of

hearing, and prior intimation of such a move. This

principle is too well entrenched in the legal ethos of this

country to be ignored, as the state did, in this case.

16. The High Court, in the opinion of this court, fell into

error in holding that in matters of award of public

contracts, the scope of inquiry in judicial review is

limited. Granted, such jurisdiction is extremely

circumscribed; no doubt the court had refused to grant

relief to Daffodils against its plea of wrongful rejection

of its tender. However, what the impugned judgment

clearly overlooks is that the action of the state, not to

procure indefinitely, on an assumption of complicity by

Daffodils, was in flagrant violation of principles of

natural justice.”

14 Keeping in view of the above settled principle of law, no

order causing prejudice to the employee can be passed without

giving an opportunity of hearing to him/her. In the present case,

concededly, no show-cause-notice was ever served upon the

CWP-14605-2021 and

connected petitions -16-

employees not only qua the withdraw of the benefits extended to

them with regard to re-fixation of pay in the nursing cadre but also

qua the recovery of the alleged excess amount paid. That being so,

the rules of natural justice have been violated and the said action of

unilateral withdrawal of the benefits extended to the petitioners, is

contrary to the settled principle of law as noticed herein before.

15. Keeping in view the above, order withdrawing the

benefits dated 16.07.2020 (Annexure A-1) as well as similar orders

passed later in another bunch of petitions are hereby set-aside.

However, the respondent-PGI shall be at liberty to initiate an

appropriate process in case it is of the view that the benefit

extended to the members of the Nursing cadre vide letter dated

25.05.2019 (Annexure A-10) was incorrect, by adopting the due

process of first serving a show-cause-notice based upon the

recommendation/clarification issued by the Government of India

and thereafter passing an order after considering the objections, if

any, submitted by the employees concerned.

16. It is made clear that on the aspect whether the said

benefit is to be withdrawn or not, no expression is being made by

this Court. The decision in this regard shall be taken by the

employer keeping in mind the clarification given by the

Government/ Union of India coupled with the objections raised by

CWP-14605-2021 and

connected petitions -17-

the employees concerned .

17. As the revised salary is being paid to the petitioners, the

same shall be allowed as of now, subject however, to issuance of a

fresh show cause notice to the petitioners. In case, upon the

culmination of the said process, it is found that the petitioners are

entitled to the salary as per the letter dated 25.05.2019 (Annexures

A-10), even the arrears payable to the petitioners shall be released

to them forthwith. Conversely, in case the petitioners are found not

entitled for the same, the petitioners shall be at liberty to avail

appropriate remedy, available to them, in accordance with law.

18. The present bunch of petitions are disposed of in above

terms.

19. Pending application(s) if any, shall also disposed of.

20. A photocopy of this order be placed on the other

connected petitions.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)

JUDGE

( VIKAS SURI )

JUDGE

13.11.2025

Riya

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No