- (1.)Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. For the sake of clarity and convenience we shall advert to the facts in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 13027 of 2011. The Respondents along with others invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 9909 of 2008 asserting, inter alia, that the decision taken by the State Government, Department of Irrigation, pertaining to refutation of pay of employees vide orders dated 07.01.2008 and 18.01.2008 whereby a direction was issued to the concerned Executive Engineer, to Ranjit Sagar Dam Project to refix the pay of the concerned employees in accordance with Punjab Civil Services Rules was erroneous. As per the said orders the Respondents who had availed the higher pay scale because of grant of certain special increments while they were working in the Work Charged Establishment under the project and that apart had also drawn the retrenchment increments were to be denied the said benefit as there was a wrong computation. The learned Single Judge adverted to the status of work charged employees and opined that the withdrawal of retrenchment increments was not justified. As far as grant of special increments from time to time to certain employees is concerned the writ court opined that there was no uniform policy and benefit of special increments was given on selective basis. Being of this view, the learned Single Judge directed as follows:
"In view of the above, the Respondents are not entitled to effect any recovery from the Petitioners either on account of retrenchment increments or special increment allegedly erroneously given. However, the Respondents are entitled to re-fix the emoluments by reducing the special increment only. Consequently the pay of the Petitioners will be re-fixed and in case of those employees who have already retired from service, the retiral benefit shall be released within a period of two months. The Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension/retiral benefits at the statutory rate wherever admissible and at the rate of 6% on pension and other retiral benefits where statutory interest is not provided for. Any amount deducted from the retiral benefits or the salary of the Petitioners shall be refunded within the aforesaid period."

(2.)The aforesaid order was accepted by the State of Punjab. However, the Respondents preferred LPA No. 1161 of 2009 and the Division Bench referred to the concept of pay fixation and grant of power of the Chief Engineer to grant advance increments and eventually opined thus:
"A bare perusal of Rule 10.8 make it clear that the Chief Engineer has been clothed with the power to grant advance increments to the personnel borne on work-charged establishment, which could be granted even on initial appointment of the person against a post as well as during the course of his service. The Chief Engineer continues to enjoy this power till date. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the benefit of special increments which was extended to various work-charged employees like the Petitioner-appellant, did not require any sanction from any authority before its release to work-charged employees because the Chief Engineer is fully competent. We further find that the circular dated 5.8.1968 issued by the State of Punjab converting grant of special increments to cash rewards to its employees could not have been made applicable to the Petitioner-appellants because prior to 1996 the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-1 Part-1 were not applicable to them and they were to be governed by the Departmental Financial Rules. At stated above, under Rule 10.8 of the Departmental Financial Rules, The Chief Engineer was fully empowered to grant special increment to a person borne on work-charged establishment. It is also well settled principle of law that the executive instructions cannot override the powers of the authorities conferred upon them under the statutory Rules. Therefore, it is held that the Chief Engineer was competent to grant special increments under Rule 10.8 of the Departmental Financial Rules and the same could not have been withdrawn."

(3.)Being of this view the Division Bench allowed the appeal.