Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Regular Second Appeal; Upholds Withdrawal of Erroneously Granted Selection Grade

Case Name: Satya Kumari Uppal vs. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 14 November 2025
Citation: RSA-4355-2001
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 100 CPC. The Court affirmed that the selection grade had been mistakenly granted to the appellant, and its subsequent withdrawal and refixation of pay were legally permissible without prior notice, as the appellant had no legal entitlement to the benefit.

Summary: The appellant, who retired as a Lady Health Visitor in the Punjab Health Department, sought revision of her retiral dues on the basis of a higher last-drawn salary which included a selection grade inadvertently granted during service. The trial court partly decreed the suit by directing payment of delayed retiral dues with interest but declined the claim to compute pension based on the higher grade. The first appellate court upheld those findings. In the second appeal, the appellant argued that even if the selection grade was mistakenly granted, its withdrawal without notice violated principles of natural justice, and therefore the retiral benefits should have been computed on the higher pay scale.

The State argued that the grant of selection grade was erroneous as the appellant’s name did not appear on the approved list of eligible employees. As such, withdrawal of the benefit and refixation of pay were proper and required no notice because the appellant was never entitled to the grade. The Court noted the appellant did not dispute her ineligibility and cited precedent confirming that errors apparent on the face of the record may be corrected administratively without issuing a pre-decisional hearing.

Decision: The High Court held that the findings of both the trial court and the first appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and applicable law, and there was no perversity warranting interference in second appellate jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that a Regular Second Appeal cannot be treated as a forum for factual re-evaluation and may only proceed if a substantial question of law is established. Since the withdrawal of the selection grade was a rectification of an admitted mistake, and the appellant had no vested right in the erroneously granted benefit, the Court found no illegality in refixing the pay at ₹1910 for calculating retiral dues.

The Court further observed that even if notice had been issued, the outcome would have remained unchanged, and therefore the absence of a hearing did not result in prejudice. The judgments of the trial court and the lower appellate court were accordingly affirmed. The appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.