Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 31 (KER)

P. K. Sasi, Senior Accountant, Sub Treasury, Piravom v. State of Kerala Represented By Its Secretary To Government, Department of Finance

2020-01-10

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, A.M.SHAFFIQUE, S.MANIKUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT : A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. 1. These matters are before us consequent to the reference order dated 23.3.2010 in W.A.Nos.996/2009 and 1143/2009. The Writ Appeals were preferred against the judgments dated 4.2.2009 and 2.3.2009 of the learned Single Judges in W.P.(C).No.551/2005 and W.P. (C).No.22629/2005 respectively. In the said writ petitions, the issue that arose for consideration was whether the petitioners therein, who were working as Treasurers in the Treasury Department of the State, were entitled to a higher grade of pay in their posts on completion of eight years service in that post, based on the Pay Revision orders in force. It would appear that the petitioners therein had been granted the said higher grade of pay, but the orders granting the higher grade were subsequently cancelled by the Government, which took the view that, insofar as the post of Treasurer under the Treasury Subordinate Service was an entry post for the purposes of the Pay Revision orders, their entitlement to the higher grade pay would accrue only on completion of ten years in the post of Treasurer and not after 8 years service as was applicable to promotion posts. 2. The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judges, who agreed with the stand taken by the Government, and hence, the writ petitioners approached the Division Bench through the intra-court appeals aforementioned. The Division Bench noticed a divergence between the views taken by the learned Single Judges in the writ petitions, with which they prima facie concurred, and the views taken by the Division Benches of this Court in two earlier cases, namely, W.A.Nos.1147/1998 and 341/2007, and thought it appropriate to refer the matter for consideration by a Full Bench. The reference order reads as follows: “W.A.No.1143/2009: The appellants are some of the writ petitioners. They were Junior Accountants in the Treasury Department. They were appointed by transfer as Treasurers. As per the Special Rules, there is a post of Head Treasurer, to which Treasurers can be promoted. But, according to the Government, the said post is not being filled up by promotion. The Treasurers will have their line of promotion as Junior Accountant/Senior Accountant, as the case may be and they will be further promoted in the direct line as Selection Grade Accountant, Junior Superintendent etc. The appellants, on completion of 8 years' service in the post of Treasurer, were granted higher grade. The Treasurers will have their line of promotion as Junior Accountant/Senior Accountant, as the case may be and they will be further promoted in the direct line as Selection Grade Accountant, Junior Superintendent etc. The appellants, on completion of 8 years' service in the post of Treasurer, were granted higher grade. Later, it was withdrawn, on the ground that appointment by transfer to the post of Treasurer should be treated as direct recruitment and such appointees could get higher grade only on completion of 10 years' service. The matter was taken up before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by the judgment under appeal, upheld the contention of the official respondents. Hence this appeal. 2. In this case, the appellants relied on the judgments of this Court in W.A.No.1147/1998 and W.A.No.341/2007. According to them, both the judgments support their claim. We think, the judgment in W.A.No.341/2007 is directly in point. 3. But, the learned Government Pleader submits, those judgments were rendered without referring to the relevant clauses in the orders governing grant of higher grade. Therefore, he prayed for reconsideration of the matter. 4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. A person in an entry post is entitled to get higher grade on completion of 10 years and a second higher grade on completion of 8 years in the first promotion post, as per the Pay Revision Government order dated 25.11.1998. Clause 5.(1)(b)(11) of the said Government order explains the concept of entry post. The relevant portion reads as follows: "The term 'entry post' shall be defined as the post to which an employee is initially appointed in Government service by direct recruitment by the Competent Authority. Appointments by transfer will also be treated as equivalent to direct recruitment for allowing the benefit of higher grade. However, promotion to a post in the direct line of promotion in a Department to be made on the basis of select list prepared by the Department Promotion Committee, even if it is appointment by transfer from Subordinate Service to State Service cannot be treated as direct recruitment for allowing the benefit of time bound higher grade. The time bound higher grade admissible will be determined with reference to the initial entry post only. The time bound higher grade admissible will be determined with reference to the initial entry post only. Those who get regular promotion or appointment to higher posts within the period specified for each time bound higher grade will not be granted further time bound higher grade during that period." Going by the said clause, not only the post to which direct recruitment is made, but the post to which appointment by transfer is made, is also treated as entry post. But, from the concept of appointment by transfer, promotions made in the direct line in the Department, though technically treated as appointment by transfer, are excluded. For example, if a Deputy Tahsildar is promoted as Tahsildar, since the appointment is from one service to another, technically, it is called appointment by transfer. But, for the purpose of the above Government order dated 25.11.1998, it is a promotion post and the post of Tahsildar will not be treated as entry post for the purpose of grant of higher grade. The said clause has been further modified as per the Pay Revision Government order dated 25.3.2006. Para 16 of Annexure 3 of the said Government order dealing with entry post reads as follows: "The term 'entry post' shall be defined as the post to which an employee is initially appointed in Government service by direct recruitment by the competent authority. Appointments made by PSC by transfer from other categories will also be treated as equivalent to direct recruitment for allowing the benefit of higher grade. However, promotion to a post in the direct line of promotion in a Department to be made on the basis of select list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee, even if it is appointment by transfer from Subordinate Service to State Service cannot be treated as direct recruitment for allowing the benefit of time bound higher grade. The time bound higher grade admissible will be determined with reference to the initial entry post in the present Department only. Service in posts having same scale will not be treated as qualifying service. Similarly, in the case of employees who get inter departmental transfer, their service in the present Department alone will be reckoned as qualifying service. The time bound higher grade admissible will be determined with reference to the initial entry post in the present Department only. Service in posts having same scale will not be treated as qualifying service. Similarly, in the case of employees who get inter departmental transfer, their service in the present Department alone will be reckoned as qualifying service. Those who get regular promotion or appointment to higher posts within the period specified for each time bound higher grade will not be granted further time bound higher grade during that period.” Entry post is clarified as the post to which direct recruitment is made by the competent authority. Appointment by transfer made on the advice of the Public Service Commission is also treated as direct recruitment. Promotion to a post in the direct line of promotion, though, technically treated as appointment by transfer, will not be treated as an appointment to an entry post, for the purpose of grade promotion. There are certain posts to which appointment by transfer is made not on the advice of the Public Service Commission, but by the appointing authority. Such posts need not be in the direct line of promotion also. Appointment to such posts has to be treated as appointment to the entry posts, as per the 1998 Pay Revision Government order. It appears, the said position continues in the 2006 Pay Revision Government order also. In the case of appointment to the post of Treasurer, the feeder categories are Junior Accountants, Senior Accountants and Typists. Appointment by transfer is made not on the advice of the Public Service Commission, but by the appointing authority. For Typists, Junior Accountants and Senior Accountants, the post of Treasurer is not a promotion post in the direct line. Therefore, the exemption granted to the appointments by transfer made in the direct line of promotion will not apply. 5. In view of the above position, we prima facie feel that the appointment to the post of Treasurer should also be treated as an appointment to an entry post. This prima facie view is at variance with the view taken in the aforementioned Writ Appeal judgments. So, we think, this Writ Appeal should be heard by a Full Bench for resolving the above conflicting views. This prima facie view is at variance with the view taken in the aforementioned Writ Appeal judgments. So, we think, this Writ Appeal should be heard by a Full Bench for resolving the above conflicting views. The point to be considered by the Full Bench is, in view of the appointment by transfer to the post of Treasurer, whether that post should be treated as an entry post, for the purpose of grant of higher grade. W.A.No.996/2009: 6. Since the very same point arises in this Writ Appeal, it should also be heard by the Full Bench along with W.A.No.1143/2009. Place the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.” 3. As W.A.Nos.1471/2009, 1438/2009, 1434/2009 and 1441/2009 also arise from the common judgment dated 21.5.2009 that followed the impugned judgments in W.A.No.996/2009 and W.A.No.1143/2009, the aforesaid writ appeals were also tagged along with the latter writ appeals for consideration by the Full Bench. While so, similar claims of Treasurers in the Treasury Department came up for consideration before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal [KAT] in T.A.No.1624/2012 and T.A.No.665/2012. The Tribunal, after considering the petitions, found that the appointment of the petitioners therein to the post of Treasurer had to be seen as a promotion for the purposes of the Pay Revision orders in force, and accordingly, they had to be granted the second higher grade on completion of 8 years service in the cadre of Treasurer. The impugned orders of the Government that cancelled the benefit granted earlier to the petitioners were quashed by the KAT. 4. Taking note of the said order of the KAT, and apparently accepting the same, the Finance Secretary, by letter dated 23.11.2012, addressed to the Director of Treasuries, directed as follows: “Inviting attention to the reference cited, I am to inform you that the judgment of the Hon'ble Principal Bench of Kerala Administrative Tribunal dated 15.03.2012 does not categorically prescribe the post of Treasurer as the promotion post of the Junior Accountant. It merely lays down that appointment of a Junior Accountant to the post of Treasurer is to be construed as on promotion for the purpose of granting of the time bound higher grades. It merely lays down that appointment of a Junior Accountant to the post of Treasurer is to be construed as on promotion for the purpose of granting of the time bound higher grades. As the post Treasurer holds the scale of pay equivalent to that for the post of Senior Accountant and as the junior most Senior Accountant is proposed to be appointed by transfer to the post of Treasurer in the new Special Rules, the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal is unlikely to have any adverse impact on the proposed amendment to Special Rules. Hence, I am to inform you to comply the judgment in Transfer Application No. 1624/2012 dated 15.03.2012 as there is no scope for appeal in this case.” 5. Further to the same, the Director of Treasuries, as per proceedings dated 8.2.2013, produced as Annexure V, passed an order interaliastating that in view of the directions issued by the Tribunal and in the light of the directions issued by the Government in its letter dated 23.11.2012, it is evident that the fixation of pay done consequent on the joining in the post of Treasurer and the 2nd time bound higher grade sanctioned to the Treasurers who exercised option to get appointment in the post of Treasurer are absolutely eligible to them including those who have not approached the court in the similar situation. The following benefits were granted to them: (i) Pay fixation enjoyed by the incumbents those who opted to the post of Treasurers prior to 01.12.2003 from the post of Accountants shall be protected. (ii) Time Bound Higher Grade (2nd) envisaged in the Pay Revision 97 (GO(P)No.3000/98/Fin. Dated 25.11.1998) is eligible to be allowed to those incumbents mentioned in above (para 6(i)). (iii) Those incumbents whose pay have already been regulated vide order read as 2nd cited, shall be maintained according to the date prior to that order wherein it was ordered to regulate their pay and allowances. (iv) In all the above cases where pay has not been fixed it shall be arrived notionally. However, no arrears shall be paid on this account. Status quo of excess pay drawn and remitted back into exchequer, shall also be maintained as such. 6. (iv) In all the above cases where pay has not been fixed it shall be arrived notionally. However, no arrears shall be paid on this account. Status quo of excess pay drawn and remitted back into exchequer, shall also be maintained as such. 6. In view of the aforesaid developments, when these Writ Appeals came up for consideration before this Full Bench, on 16.10.2014, we closed the Writ Appeals, by recording the said developments, and without answering the reference, as there was no need to do so. The State Government however changed its stand in the matter and filed Review Petitions before us seeking to review our earlier judgment dated 16.10.2014 and urging us to proceed to answer the reference. The said Review Petitions were allowed by our order dated 10.12.2019, and it is thus that the matters are now before us, yet again, for our opinion. 7. At the time of allowing the Review Petitions filed by the State Government, we took note of the fact that O.P.(KAT).Nos.363/2015, 241/2018 and 370/2015 filed by the State Government against orders of the KAT that followed its earlier order in T.A.Nos.1624/2012 and 665/2012, were pending consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, and directed the said cases to be tagged along with the batch of Writ Appeals, so that our opinion in these matters would be applicable to all the said cases. 8. Before proceeding further in this matter, it would be apposite to notice some essential facts as regards the appointment of the petitioners in the Writ Petitions/T.As against the backdrop of the statutory rules that govern their recruitment/appointment. It is not in dispute in these cases that the petitioners were all appointed as Accountants in the Treasury Department prior to their option based appointment as Treasurer. The Kerala Treasury Subordinate Service Special Rules, 1973, when originally framed, comprised only the following categories of Officers, namely:- (1) Sub Treasury Officers Grade II/ Junior Superintendents/ Bradma Supervisors/ Passing Officers (S.B). (2) Section Heads of District Treasuries/Head Accountants of Sub Treasuries. (3) Head Treasurers/Chief Treasurers. (4) Treasurers. (5) Nottams. The method of appointment to the said categories of posts was to be as follows: Category Method of appointment 1. Sub Treasury Officers Gr. II/Junior Superintendents/Passing Officers (SB)/Bradma Supervisors. By promotion from category (2) 2. Section Heads of District Treasuries/Head Accountant of Sub Treasuries. (3) Head Treasurers/Chief Treasurers. (4) Treasurers. (5) Nottams. The method of appointment to the said categories of posts was to be as follows: Category Method of appointment 1. Sub Treasury Officers Gr. II/Junior Superintendents/Passing Officers (SB)/Bradma Supervisors. By promotion from category (2) 2. Section Heads of District Treasuries/Head Accountant of Sub Treasuries. By recruitment of transfer from among Senior Accountants of the Treasury Department and by promotion from category 4. 3. Head Treasurers/Chief Treasurers. By promotion from among Treasurers 4. Treasurers. By transfer from among Accountants and Typists who opt for such appointment. 5. Nottams. By transfer from qualified hands among the Last Grade Servants (Peons) in the Treasury Department or by promotion of Gollah. Note (ii) appended to Rule 4 is important, and reads as follows: “(ii) Those in category (4) appointed subsequent to 10/02/1964,by transfer from among the category of Senior/Junior Accountants shall retain their lien in the cadre of Senior/Junior Accountants shall be given promotions to higher categories on the basis of their relative seniority in the cadre of Senior/Junior Accountants.” The post of Senior Accountant, Junior Accountant and Stamp Examiner were not inducted into the Treasury Subordinate Service till 1997, when they were included in the categories of Officers under Sl. Nos.4A, 4B and 4C through SRO 807/97 dated 18.8.1997 [G.O. (P) 698/97/Fin.]. The amendments brought in were to have retrospective effect from 12.12.1972, the date of first notification of the Special Rules. After the said amendment, Rule 2 that deals with the categories of Officers constituting the service, and Rule 4 that deals with the method of appointment to the said categories of posts read as follows: 2. Constitution.-The service shall consist of the following categories of Officers, namely:-(1) Sub Treasury Officers Grade II/ Junior Superintendents/ Bradma Supervisors/ Passing Officers (S.B). (2) Section Heads of District Treasuries/Head Accountants of Sub Treasuries. (3) Head Treasurers/ Chief Treasurers. (4) Treasurers. 4A. Senior Accountant 4B. Junior Accountant 4C. Stamp Examiner (5) Nottams. (6) x x x 3. Unit of appointment probation, discharge, reappointment, seniority, appointment as full member and postings and transfers.-For the purpose of appointment, probation, seniority, discharge for want of vacancies reappointment, appointment as full members and postings and transfers, the state shall be the unit for categories (1) to 4B and the District shall be the unit for categories 4C and 5 mentioned in Rule 2. 4. 4. Appointment.-Appointment to the various categories shall be made as follows:- Category Method of appointment (1) (2) 1. Sub Treasury Officers Grade II/Junior Superintendents/ Passing Officers (S.B.)/Bradma Supervisors By promotion from category (2) 2. Section Heads of District Treasuries/Head Accountants of Sub Treasuries. By promotion from categories 4 and 4A 3. Head Treasurers/Chief Treasurers. By promotion from among Treasurers. 4. Treasurers By transfer from among Accountants and Typists who opt for such appointment. 4A. Senior Accountant By promotion from category 4B 4B. Junior Accountant By direct recruitment 4C. Stamps Examiner (1) By transfer from the category of Attenders who are willing to take up appointment Stamp Examiner. (2) In the absence of willing Attenders for transfer, by appointment from Nottom and in their absence by transfer from Peon who have passed Standard VII, or equivalent and have a minimum of seven years Service in the Department. (3) In the absence of Candidates for recruitment by the above two methods, by direct recruitment. 5. Nottams By transfer from qualified hands among the last Grade Servants (Peons) in the Treasury Department or by promotion of Gollah. 6. x x x Note:- (i) Every tenth vacancy in category (2) shall be set apart for appointment by promotion from category (4) above who have acquired the general qualification of S.S.L.C or its equivalent and who were working as Treasurers on 10-2-1964, the date of order calling for options to the Department of Treasuries. (ii) Those in category (4) appointed subsequent to 10-2-64, by transfer from among the category of Senior/Junior accountants shall retain their lien in the cadre of Senior/Junior accountant and shall be given promotions to higher categories on the basis of their relative seniority in the cadre of Senior/Junior accountants. (iii) Those in category (4) appointed subsequent to 10-2-64 by transfer from among the category of typists shall retain their lien as typists and shall be given promotions to higher categories in the cadre of typists on the basis of their seniority in that cadre. 9. It is apparent from a reading of the Treasury Subordinate Service Special Rules, as amended, that while an appointment by promotion for Treasurers and Senior Accountants could only be to the posts of Section Heads of District Treasuries/Head Accountants of Sub Treasuries, the post of Treasurer could be filled only by transfer from among Accountants and Typists who opted for such appointment. That apart, by virtue of Note (ii) to Rule 4, those Senior/Junior Accountants who opted for appointment as Treasurer after 10.2.1964, continued to retain their lien in the cadre of Senior/Junior Accountant, and could aspire for promotion to higher categories only on the basis of their relative seniority in the cadre of Senior/Junior Accountants. As it is well settled in service law, that a Government servant cannot simultaneously have two liens against two posts in two different cadres [See Ramlal Khurana (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Punjab and Others -[ (1989) 4 SCC 99 ]], we have to proceed on the basis that the appointment by transfer of the petitioners to the post of Treasurer was not a substantive appointment to the said post, but a mere temporary appointment thereto based on the option exercised by them. Their substantive appointment continued to be in the post of Senior/Junior Accountant that they occupied at the time of exercise of their option. Perhaps, in the absence of Note (ii) to Rule 4, the petitioners could have contended that their lien in the post of Senior/Junior Accountant had terminated, and that they had acquired a lien in the post of Treasurer to which they were appointed. The express provisions of Note (ii) to Rule (3), however, compel us to reject such a contention in the instant cases. 10. We cannot also but notice that the pay scales of the Officers in the categories of Junior/Senior Accountants and Treasurers has been different. While the pay scale for Senior Accountants and Treasurers was subsequently made equal, the pay scale of the Junior Accountant was at a lower level. The position with regard to pay scales, as made available to us by the learned Government Pleader is as follows: Sl. No. Designation Scale of Pay with effect from 01.03.1992 Scale of Pay with effect from 01.03.1997 1. Treasurer 1200 – 2040 4000 – 6090 2. Junior Accountant 950 – 1650 3050 – 5230 3. Senior Accountant 1200 – 2040 4000 -6090 It was this difference in pay scale, and consequently the attraction of a higher pay scale, that incentivised the appointment by transfer of a Junior Accountant as Treasurer in the service. Treasurer 1200 – 2040 4000 – 6090 2. Junior Accountant 950 – 1650 3050 – 5230 3. Senior Accountant 1200 – 2040 4000 -6090 It was this difference in pay scale, and consequently the attraction of a higher pay scale, that incentivised the appointment by transfer of a Junior Accountant as Treasurer in the service. Thus, consequent to the amendment in the Special Rules, the Junior Accountant who had to await his turn, based on seniority, for promotion as Senior Accountant, could opt for an appointment by transfer to the post of Treasurer, where he would get the benefit of the higher pay scale enjoyed by Senior Accountants, without being promoted as such. It is in the backdrop of the above facts that we have to consider whether the appointment of the petitioners to the post of Treasurer is to be treated as an appointment to an entry post or an appointment by way of promotion, for the purposes of the Pay Revision orders. The term “Entry Post” was defined in the relevant Pay Revision orders as follows: "The term 'entry post' shall be defined as the post to which an employee is initially appointed in Government service by direct recruitment by the competent authority. Appointments made by PSC by transfer from other categories will also be treated as equivalent to direct recruitment for allowing the benefit of higher grade. However, promotion to a post in the direct line of promotion in a Department to be made on the basis of select list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee, even if it is appointment by transfer from Subordinate Service to State Service cannot be treated as direct recruitment for allowing the benefit of time bound higher grade. The time bound higher grade admissible will be determined with reference to the initial entry post in the present Department only. Service in posts having same scale will not be treated as qualifying service. Similarly, in the case of employees who get inter departmental transfer, their service in the present Department alone will be reckoned as qualifying service. The time bound higher grade admissible will be determined with reference to the initial entry post in the present Department only. Service in posts having same scale will not be treated as qualifying service. Similarly, in the case of employees who get inter departmental transfer, their service in the present Department alone will be reckoned as qualifying service. Those who get regular promotion or appointment to higher posts within the period specified for each time bound higher grade will not be granted further time bound higher grade during that period.” The relevance of the definition of “Entry Post” in the Pay Revision orders is that the grant of higher grade pay scale is dependent on the number of years of stagnation faced by an Officer in a particular post, and while the first higher grade is granted to an Officer after 10 years in an entry post, the second higher grade is granted on completion of 8 years in the first promotion post or on completion of a total service of 18 years in the entry post and the first regular promotion post/time bound higher grade together, whichever is earlier. It has to be borne in mind that the grant of time bound higher grade pay scales is essentially to offer solace to an Officer who does not get the higher pay applicable to a higher post on account of his/her stagnation in the lower post. Had an Officer moved to the promoted post before the expiry of 10 years in the entry post, he would not get the first higher grade benefit because his appointment to the higher post, by way of promotion, would have already earned him a higher pay. The said Officer would then get only the second higher grade on completion of 8 years in the promoted post or on completion of 18 years total service in the entry post and first regular promotion post/time bound higher grade together, whichever is earlier. In the instant cases, the petitioners, while working as Junior Accountants, opted for appointment to the post of Treasurer only because of the higher pay scale that was attached to the said post. Through the said appointment, they obtained the relief against stagnation, as envisaged in the Pay Revision order in force. In the instant cases, the petitioners, while working as Junior Accountants, opted for appointment to the post of Treasurer only because of the higher pay scale that was attached to the said post. Through the said appointment, they obtained the relief against stagnation, as envisaged in the Pay Revision order in force. Had the post of Treasurer been a post in the direct line of promotion for a Junior Accountant in the Treasury Department, then the petitioners could have claimed the next higher grade on completion of 8 years in the post of Treasurer or on completion of a total service of 18 years in the post of Junior Accountant and Treasurer, whichever was earlier. However, since the post of Treasurer is not one in the direct line of promotion for Junior Accountants in the Treasury Department, and further, Note (ii) to Rule (3) clearly mandates that the lien of the petitioners continued to be in the post of Junior Accountant that they occupied while opting for appointment as Treasurer, their appointment as Treasurer, for the purposes of Pay Revision orders, has to be seen as an appointment to an entry post. The specific provisions of Note (ii) to Rule 3 of the Special Rules, serve to distinguish these cases from those decided by this Court in W.A.No.341/2007 and W.A.No.1147/1998 where the Division Benches, although were concerned with similar appointments in other departments -The Forest Department and the Zilla Sainik Welfare Office respectively -were nevertheless not confronted with a provision similar to Note (ii) to R.3 of the Kerala Treasury Subordinate Service Special Rules and the lien contemplated therein. 11. We accordingly answer the reference as follows: Notwithstanding that the petitioners were appointed by transfer to the post of Treasurer in the Treasury Department of the State, inasmuch as the post of Treasurer is not one in the direct line of promotion to the post of Junior Accountants in the Treasury Department, and further, Note (ii) to Rule (3) clearly mandates that the lien of the petitioners continues to be in the post of Junior Accountants that they occupied while opting for appointment as Treasurers, their appointment as Treasurer, for the purposes of the Pay Revision orders has to be seen as an appointment to an entry post. 12. 12. Before parting with these cases, we might also add that we have been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that, pursuant to the orders of the KAT, and the orders passed by the Government accepting the said orders of the Tribunal, the petitioners were granted the benefit of higher grade in the post of Treasurer on completion of 8 years service in the said post. We are also given to understand that some of the petitioners have since retired from service. Under the said circumstances, while answering the reference as above, we take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ], and make it clear that the State Government shall not take any steps for recovery of the monetary benefits already extended to the petitioners herein, and further, that the benefits so granted shall be reckoned for the purposes of their service and retirement benefits. The Writ Appeals and O.P.(KAT)s are thus disposed based on our answer to the reference.