Chattisgarh High Court
Omprakash Mishra And Ors vs Gurughasidas Central University ... on 23 September, 2015
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 217 of 2013
1. Omprakash Mishra S/o Shri B.P. Mishra Aged About 43 Years working
as L.D.C. Cum Typist, R/o Nehru Nagar, P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur,
C.G.
2. Chhatram Dewangan S/o Late Duijram, Aged About 47 Years, Peon
Village Sarkhon, P.S. Naila, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, C.G.
3. Santram Yadav S/o Shri Punni Lal Yadav, Aged About 47 Years
Chowkidar, R/o Devnagar, Behind Registrar Banglow, P.S. Koni, Distt.
Bilaspur, C.G.
4. Ashok Yadav S/o Late Asharam Yadav Aged About 42 Years Peon,
R/o Padavpara, Kargi Road, P.S. Kota Dist. Bilaspur, C.G.
5. Miss Veena Vaishnav D/o Late Bhagwat Prasad Vaishnav, Aged
About 36 Years, L.D.C. Cum Typist, R/o Jabdapara, P.S. Sarkanda,
Bilaspur C.G.
6. Rajkumar Patel S/o Shri Firatu Ram Patel Aged About 39 Years Badi
Koni, Ps. Koni, Dist. Bilaspur C.G.
7. Mohammed Khan S/o Shubham Khan Aged About 37 Years Sweeper,
R/o Daihanpara, Chhotikoni, P.S. Koni, Dist. Bilaspur C.G.
8. Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Chhedilal Vishwakarma Aged About 45
Years L.D.C. Cum Typist, R/o Juna Bilaspur P.S. City Kotwali,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G.
9. Rajesh Rathore S/o B.P. Rathore Aged About 46 Years, L.D.C. Cum
Typist, R/o C/o Shri Ram Kumar Advocate, B.D. Mahant Up Nagar,
Janjgir, P.S. Janjgir-Champa, C.G
10. Omprakash Yadav, S/o Jeevanlal Aged About 40 Years Laboratory
Asstt. (Paricharak), R/o Village Karagharwat, P.S. Ratanpur, Tah. Kota
Dist. Bilaspur C.G.
11. Maniram Patel S/o Chhedilal Aged About 49 Years Badi Koni, Ps.
Koni, Dist. Bilaspur C.G.
12. Dhannu Pandey S/o Ramgulam Pandey Aged About 49 Years
Chowkidar, R/o Vill. & Post Bhaima, Ps. Sarkanda, Dist. Bilaspur C.G.
13. Chandraprakash Kariyare S/o Babulal Aged About 40 Years
Laboratory Asstt. R/o Vill. & Post Masturi, Dr. Ambedakar Chowk, Ps.
Masturi, Dist. Bilaspur C.G.
14. Salikram Sahu S/o Geneshram Sahu Aged About 39 Years Badi Koni,
Ps. Koni, Dist. Bilaspur C.G.
15. S.V. Rangarao S/o Lt. S.V. Ramarao Aged About 47 Years Class Iv
Employee, Bandar, R/o Tarbahar, Bilaspur Ps. Tarbahar, Dist. Bilaspur
C.G.
16. Ramgopal Sao S/o Vishaliram Sao Aged About 41 Years Nutan
Chowk, Sarkanda, Ps. Sarkanda, Dist. Bilaspur C.G.
17. Bisahulal Kariyare S/o Babulal Kariyare Aged About 43 Years Class Iv
Employee, Sweeper R/o Jairamnagar, Ps. Seepat Dist. Bilaspur C.G.
18. Chaitram Dheevar S/o Sahasram Dheevar Aged About 50 Years Class
Iv Employee, Garden Kuli, R/o Badi Koni, Ps. Koni, Distt. Bilaspur C.G.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Gurughasidas Central University Bilaspur Though Vice Chancellor,
Guru Ghasidas Central University, Koni P.S. Koni Dist. Bilaspur C.G.
2. Registrar Gurughasidas Central University, Koni P.S. Koni, Bilaspur,
District Bilaspur, C.G.
---- Respondents
and WPS No. 79 of 2013
1. Vijay Kumar Gupta S/o Dwarika Prasad Gupta Aged About 44 Years Occupation Lower Division Clerk, Cum Typist Guru Ghasidas University Koni Road, P.S. Koni, Distt Bilaspur, Cg
2. Ram Kumar Singh Tomar S/o Hari Gyan Singh Lower Division Clerk Cum Typist Guru Ghasidas University Koni Road, Ps Koni, Distt Bilaspur, Cg
3. Vijay Bhadur Singh S/o Lal Bahadur Singh Lower Division Clerk Cum Typist, Guru Ghasidas University Koni Road, P.S. Koni, Distt Bilaspur, Cg
---- Petitioners Versus
1. Guru Ghasidas University Bilaspur, Through Vice Chancellor, Guru Ghasidas University, Koni Road, Ps Koni, Distt Bilaspur, Cg
2. Registrar Guru Ghasidas University, Koni Road, Ps Koni
---- Respondents For Petitioners Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate For Respondents Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board By 23/09/2015
1. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the order, whereby pursuant to the cancellation of order of regularization, the regular salary paid to them on the scale admissible to a regular employee, has been directed to be recovered in monthly installment.
2. Concededly, the petitioners were regularized in the services by the order dated 26.08.2008, however, the executive council of the respondent University did not approve the regularization resulting in cancellation of the regularization. The petitioners have assailed the order of cancellation of regularization in separate writ petitions. In the present writ petitions, the challenge is confined to the order of recovery of the excess amount paid to them on regular scale pursuant to the order of regularization.
3. The issue as to when a person is wrongly promoted to a post, is later on brought down to feeder cadre and would be liable to repay the government, the excess amount paid to him while he served on the promoted post is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the matter of Premlata Joshi v. Chief Secretary, State of Uttarakhand and others1 has held thus:-
"20. Thus, we do not find any fault with the direction of the High Court keeping in view of the facts of the present case. The appellants are not correct in their arguments that the High Court has assumed the role of the DPC. In fact the High Court only referred to the exercise undertaken by the DPC itself which had awarded marks to both the appellant as well as the private respondent and rightly concluded that the criterion of merit was violated by giving promotion to the appellant on such a comparative assessment where the respondent was rated more meritorious than the appellant. Insofar as payment of excess salary made to the appellant in promotional post is concerned, we are of the opinion that since the appellant has already retired and the promotion given to her is because of the wrong exercise of the Department in not applying the Rules/OM correctly and it was not because of any misrepresentation or suppression by the appellant, no recovery of the excess amount paid to 1 (2013) 16 SCC 482 her is called for. Subject to the aforesaid, both the appeals are dismissed. The private respondent shall also be entitled to the cost of Rs 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand) which shall be paid by the Government."
4. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others2 has held thus:-
"5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs."
5. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in above referred cases squarely applies to the facts of the present case, wherein the petitioners were regularized and paid regular pay scale not on account of any misrepresentation by them, but it was a decision taken by the respondent University, though the same was later on withdrawn/cancelled.
6. For the foregoing, both the writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The recovery of excess payment made to the petitioners on regular pay scale pursuant to their regularization stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Nirala 2 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18