Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Raj And Anr vs Raj Civil Service Appel &Anr on 1 August, 2011
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench **
Civil Writ Petition No.13724/2008 State & Ors Versus RAT & Ors Date of Order ::: 01/08/2011 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Kanishk Gupta for Mr. Hemant Mathur, Dy.G. C, for State .
Instant petition has been filed assailing judgment dt.23/02/2008 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal whereby order of recovery dt.28/08/1998 was set aside.
It has come on record that respondent employee initially joined as LDC on 20/01/1965 and thereafter was appointed as Ziledar vide order dt.06/07/1977 and was made permanent vide order dt.30/06/1978 and holding this post, he stood retired from service on attaining age of superannuation 31/03/1998; and after his retirement from service, an order was passed on 10/08/1998 making certain recovery on the premise that he was given wrong benefit of fixation of pay U/r 26A of RSR and pursuant to which recovery was also directed to be made from his retiral dues vide order dt.28/08/1998, which was assailed by employee by filing appeal before the Tribunal.
vide order dt.23/01/2008, the learned Tribunal, after taking note of material on record, set aside both the orders pursuant to which the petitioner was directed to revise pay fixation and the recovery which they intended to make from retiral dues of respondent employee was set aside.
Government Counsel submits that respondent employee was appointed as Ziledar from the ministerial cadre and his fixation of pay was wrongly made giving benefit of R.26A of RSR, which was not admissible to him and only on account of error being committed, the recovery was to be made from his retiral dues, that has not been looked into by the Tribunal while passing the order impugned.
It appears from the record that the learned Tribunal has taken note of total length of service rendered by employee while holding the post of Ziledar and initial service which he joined as LDC on 20/01/1965 and taking note whereof, benefit of selection scale was granted to him and which was considered to be legal and finally recorded the finding that order dt. 10/08/1998 revising the pay and further recovery being made because of alleged wrong grant of benefit U/r 26A of RSR, was not tenable and however, benefit of 2nd selection scale was granted on completion of service of 9/18 years while holding the post of Ziledar and that being an apparent error which the petitioner has committed while passing the recovery order.
That apart, this Court finds that before the action being taken, no opportunity of hearing to the employee was afforded by the authority while passing order of recovery dt. 28/08/1998, which even otherwise was in violation of principles of natural justice. However, the learned Tribunal has finally observed that GPO, PPO and CPO may be revised as a consequence of setting aside the order of recovery impugned in appeal. This Court finds no manifest error being committed by the Tribunal while passing judgment dt.23/01/2008 which may call interference.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Ajay Rastogi), J.
K.Khatri/p.3/ 13724CW2008Aug1Ds.doc