Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shekhar Koranne vs Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board ... on 31 July, 2017
--- 1 ---
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J
WRIT PETITION No. 2847 / 2016
UMESH DALVI
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 1184 / 2016
RAJENDRA GHAYAL
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 2835 / 2016
ARUN BHOPALKAR
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 2877 / 2016
SHARAD KHARGONKAR
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 2885 / 2016
VINAY GODBOLE
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
--- 2 ---
WRIT PETITION No. 2891 / 2016
MUKESH PATHAK
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 2934 / 2016
DEVENDRA CHANDRA SHUKLA
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 2945 / 2016
SMT. KUNDA ZAMINDAR
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 2947 / 2016
SMT. SANDHYA CHAIANYA GHADGE
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3013 / 2016
KALPANA KULKARNI
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3014 / 2016
GAJENDRA SINGH CHOUHAN
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
--- 3 ---
WRIT PETITION No. 3070 / 2016
PRADEEP SINGH MUKATI
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3071 / 2016
MANOHAR LAL TOLANI
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3072 / 2016
RAJESH BAKSHEE
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3076 / 2016
SATISH SHROTRI
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3103 / 2016
MILIND KATRE
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3137 / 2016
SUNIL KUMAR MATKAR
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
--- 4 ---
WRIT PETITION No. 3138 / 2016
VINOD KUMAR DALAL
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3139 / 2016
VIKRAM SINGH THAKUR
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3140 / 2016
MANOHAR LAL ARYA
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3141 / 2016
SADASHIV PATHAK
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3167 / 2016
SMT. RAJANI MATHUR
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3169 / 2016
SHIKHAR KUMAR JAIN
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
--- 5 ---
WRIT PETITION No. 3183 / 2016
KAMLESH KUMAR GUPTA
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3201 / 2016
KAMAL KISHORE SHARMA
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3334 / 2016
SHEKHAR KORANNE
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3524 / 2016
SUDHIR
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3773 / 2016
JAGDISH PRASAD SAINI
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 3789 / 2016
YOGENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
--- 6 ---
WRIT PETITION No. 3790 / 2016
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 4068 / 2016
MUNNALAL KHARE
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION No. 5305 / 2016
SURESH KUMAR JAIN
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 2745 / 2017
MOHAMMAD IQBAL SHAIKH
Vs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDORE REGION,
M.P. PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.,
INDORE AND ANOTHER
*****
ORDER
( 31/07/2017) Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being
--- 7 ---
disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No. 2847/2016 are narrated hereunder.
The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 18/3/2016 passed by the respondents by which the respondents have set aside the pay fixation of the petitioner dt. 27/12/1999 and has directed recovery made to the petitioner.
The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on 22/5/1982 as Office Assistant Grade 3, at Indore and on 6/5/1999 an order was passed granting time bound promotion to the petitioner. On 15/12/1999 Petitioner was promoted to the post of Office Assistant Grade 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid promotion was granted keeping in view the time bound promotion scheme applicable to Class 3 and Class 4 employees dt. 6/5/1999. Further contention of the petitioner is that he was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.2800-5825.
Another Circular was issued on 19/7/1990 which was again for grant of higher pay scale and the petitioner was
--- 8 ---
granted higher pay scale on 29/12/2007. It has been further stated that the higher pay scale was granted as per Circular dt. 19/7/1990 and the petitioner was again granted second higher pay scale by order dated 17/7/2008. The petitioner's grievance is that a Notice was issued to the petitioner on 7/5/2015 stating that as to why benefit of higher pay scale should not be withdrawn and the emoluments granted in excess to his entitlement should not be recovered.
The petitioner did file a reply and after hearing the petitioner, the respondents have passed an order dt. 18/3/2016 withdrawing the higher pay scale granted to the petitioner in the year1999 and the recovery has been ordered.
The contention of the petitioner is that all the three pay scales were granted to him in the light of various policies issued by the Board from time to time and no recovery can be initiated in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in 2014 AIR SCW 6256.
--- 9 ---
On the other hand, a reply has been filed in the matter and it is submitted that the Petitioner was mistakenly granted the benefit of Higher Pay-scale under the TBPS, wherein as per the Scheme an Employee is ought to have been granted the benefit of Re-designation of the Post only and not the benefit of Higher Pay-scale or Revision of pay and accordingly the said erroneously extending the benefit of Higher Pay-scale and fixation of pay was rectified by the Respondents after following principles of natural justice. It is an important fact to consider that in the erstwhile Board and in the present Company there is no provision to grant the benefit of Three Higher Pay-scales to its employees and the contention of the respondent is that due to erroneous interpretation of Circulars, the benefit was extended to the Petitioner and he has obtained Three Higher Pay-scale in his service tenure.
It has been further stated that it is a matter of consideration that an employee can be granted the benefit of Higher Pay-scale or Revised Pay-fixation only when the
--- 10 ---
relevant policy provides. The Scheme of Time Bound Promotion enforced by the erstwhile Board vide its Circular Dt. 06.05.1999 under which it was principally decided to grant the benefit of the scheme to the 10 posts of Direct recruitment cadre posts of the Board. It was decided that those employees who were already granted the benefit of Higher Pay-scale of next promotional post after completion of 9/18 years of Service would redesignated by prefixing word 'Additional' before their name of next promotional post of which Pay-scale they are already availed under the Higher Pay-scale Scheme Dt. 19.07.1990 of the Board. Copy of the Circular Dt. 19.07.1990 has already submitted by the Petitioner as Annexure P/5 at Page No.29-48 of the Writ Petition.
It is further contended that an employee under the prevailing Circulars was entitled to get the benefit of Higher Pay-scales (First and Second) of next promotional post, if they were not promoted, after completion of 9/18/25 years of service and to make distinction between the employees
--- 11 ---
who have got the benefit of Higher Pay-scale it was decided to grant them benefit of TBPS under which they have to be re-designated by suffixing the word 'Additional' before the name of Next promotional post, Pay-scale of which they were already receiving.
It has been further contended that as per Circular Dt. 06.05.1999 under the TBPS there is no provision to grant the benefit of Higher Pay-scale/Revision of Pay Fixation, which also gets confirmed by perusal of Clause 2 and 3 of the Circular. Para 2 and 3 reads as under: -
2@ mijksDr inksa in inLFk deZpkfj;ksa dks 9 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus rFkk mPp osrueku izkIr djus ij mudh vxyh inksUufr ds in ds uke ds ^^vfrfjDr** 'kCn tksM+dj u;k inuke fn;k tk;sxkA tSls fd ifjpkjd Js.kh&nks dks 9 o"khZ; mPp osrueku izkIr djus ij ^^vfrfjDr ifjpkjd Js.kh&,d** dk inuke fn;k tkosxkA 3@ mijksDr u;s inuke izkfIr ds i'pkr~ deZpkfj;ksa ds dk;ksZ esa dksbZ ifjorZu ugha vk;sxkA os ogha dk;Z djrs jgsaxsa tks orZeku esa dj jgs gSA muds osru rFkk vU; HkRrksa esa Hkh ifjofrZr inuke dk dksbZ izHkko ugha iMsxkA lkFk gh mudh ofj"Brk Hkh vizHkkfor jgsxhA Respondents have further stated that the aforesaid
--- 12 ---
decision of redesignation was only taken principally it was further provided under the Clause 8 of the Order that to implement the decision the rules and other conditions will be provided separately. Copy of Circular Dt. 06.05.1999 has already placed on Record by the Petitioner as Annexure P/1.
It has been further contended that since in view of the Clause 8 of the Circular Dt. 06.05.1999 no order under the TBPS was issued in continuation of the same and upon request of the representative Union a Circular Dt.
30.07.1999 was issued whereby certain directions was provided for issuing the order under the TBPS. The operative para/directions were given from Clause 5 of the Circular Dt. 30.07.1999 as per which it became abundantly clear that those employees, who are already getting the benefit of Higher Pay Scale on completion of 9/18 years of service, the order of Re-designation, by prefixing the word "Additional" before the post for which higher Pay-scale has been granted has to be issued. It was further provided to
--- 13 ---
ascertain/verify that the employee is already getting and placed in the higher Pay-scale of next promotional post directions has been issued from the Service Book/L.P.C. etc. Copy of Circular Dt. 30.07.1999 has already placed on Record by the Petitioner at Page No.18 (Annexure-P/3) of the Writ compilation.
It has been further contended that the provisions contained in the Clause 5(a), (b) and (c) also makes it clear that under the scheme there was no provision to grant the benefit of Higher Pay Scale or Pay fixation, in fact Clause 5(c) provides for the eventuality wherein those employee whom Higher Pay-scale is has to be given and provides that after granting the benefit of First Higher Pay-scale as per the Board's Circular enforced they have to be re-designated under the TPB Scheme. Clause 7 of the Circular also provides that the Order of Re-designation was not to be issued from retrospective effect, i.e. from the date of granting the benefit of Higher Pay-scale.
It has been further stated that the decision of Time
--- 14 ---
Bound Promotion Scheme was only principally taken and the same was subject to the Full Board's approval, which is also confirmed by perusal of the Order Dt. 15.12.1999 (Annexure P/2), which provides that in event of Full Board not approving the Scheme, the said benefit would be liable for withdrawn and promotion made also would be withdrawn.
It has been further stated here that vide Order Dt. 07.02.2001, it was decided to stop the benefit of TBPS and accordingly authorities were informed, not to grant the benefit of TBPS to the employees, a copy of Order Dt. 07.02.2001 is on record and marked as Annexure R/1.
It has been further contended that since it was found that in some cases under the TBPS Scheme, employees were granted the benefit of Higher Pay-scale, wherein, as per the TBP Scheme there was no provision to grant the benefit of Higher Pay-scale therefore a Clarification Order Dt. 14.01.2011 was issued whereby it was clarified that under the provisions of TBPS, employee is not entitled to be fixed
--- 15 ---
or grant the Higher Pay-scale. Copy of Clarification Order Dt. 14.01.2011 is on record as Annexure P/8.
It has been further stated that upon issuance of the Clarification Order Dt. 14.01.2011 the Corporate Selection Committee of the Company was ordered to reconsider and to decide such matters, wherein the employees were granted erroneous benefit of Higher Pay-scale under the TBPS and accordingly adhering to the principle of natural justice a Notice was issued to the Petitioner and he was also provided opportunity of personal hearing and after considering all the aspect of the matter a detailed and exhaustive Order Dt. 18.03.2016 (Annexure P/11) was issued, whereby the erroneous benefit of Higher Pay-scale under TBPS granted to the Petitioner was withdrawn and consequential Recovery Order was issued, which is just, proper and legal.
It has been further stated that after passing of Order Dt. 18.03.2016, pay of the Petitioner has been fixed w.e.f. 30.12.2007 in the Pay-scale of 9300-34800+GP 3800 vide Order Dt. 07.04.2016 (Annexure P/12) and consequently a
--- 16 ---
calculation sheet has been prepared by fixing his pay accordingly with respect to payment of excess Salary till 31.03.2016, as per which a total amount of Rs. 2,36,113/- is required to be recovered from the Petitioner.
The respondents have further stated that the petitioner has submitted an Undertaking at the time of Revision of his Pay and Fixation of Pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and as per the Undertaking, with respect to Payment of any dues or loss caused due to fixation of pay, the same can be recovered. A copy of Undertaking furnished by the Petitioner time to time, is on record as Annexure R/2.
The respondents have further stated that the Petitioner was initially appointed on the Post of Office Assistant Grade-III and his pay was revised time to time as per the prevailing wage Revisions of the Board till passing of the Order Dt. 15.12.1999. Prior to issuance of Order Dt. 15.12.1999 he was never granted the Higher Pay-scale and by the aforesaid order he has been granted Pay-scale of Rs. 2800-70-3440 though his existing pay of Office Assistant
--- 17 ---
Grade-III was Rs. 2490-60-5075, therefore the benefit of the Time Bound Promotion Scheme (TBPS) could not have been extended to the Petitioner as he was never granted Higher Pay-scale as per the Circular issued on Dt. 19.07.1990 (Annexure R/1).
It has been further contended that in the Case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Others Vs. State Of Uttarakhand And Others, reported in [2012] 8 S.C.C. 417, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been held that any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment. Thus the recovery of the excess amount paid to the Petitioner cannot be said to be illegal and is well according to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
It has been further contended that as per the Impugned Order Dt. 18.03.2016 it is evident that Petitioner has been
--- 18 ---
granted Higher Pay-scale belonging to Section Officer vide Order Dt. 17.07.2008 (Annexure P/7) and he could not have been granted the Higher Pay-scale of Section Officer holding the substantive post of Office Assistant Grade-II and consequently the same has been withdrawn as he has been extended First Higher Pay-scale of Office Assistant Grade-II vide Order Dt. 15.12.1999 (Annexure P/2) and Second Higher Pay-scale vide Order Dt. 29.12.2009 (Annexure P/6) w.e.f. 28.12.2004 therefore the Order passed on 17.07.2008 has been cancelled as the same was found to be issued on the wrong presumption that the Petitioner is entitled to receive the Pay-scale of Section Officer.
It has been further stated that the explanation issued on Dt. 14.01.2011 clearly provides that under Time Bound Promotion Scheme Higher Pay-scale could not be granted and no 'Fixation of Pay' is required but due to some mistakenly belief and wrong interpretation of the Circular, the Indore Region of the M.P.S.E.B. has been granted
--- 19 ---
Higher Pay-scale under TBPS though in the other region of erstwhile M.P.S.E.B. had not been provided Higher Pay- scale pursuant to the circular issued on 06.05.1999 and 30.07.1999, therefore when the matter was came-up before the authorities for its consideration it was found that the Higher Pay-scale has been wrongly extended to the Office Assistant Grade-III belonging to Indore Region and accordingly same has been rectified by passing the Impugned Order Dt. 18.03.2016 by granting an opportunity of hearing to each of the employees after issuing a Show- cause Notice and providing a Personal Hearing to the Petitioner to follow the Principles of Natural Justice.
It has been further stated that the respondent- Authorities is having authority to recover the amount which has been found to be excess/overpayment of pay and allowances as per the provision contained in Rule 65 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh reported in AIR
--- 20 ---
(2016) SC 3523, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been held that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. It has been further stated that the petitioner furnished an Undertaking while opting for the Revised Pay-scale and he is bound by the Undertaking, therefore, on the basis of above pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the amount which was paid excess to the legal entitlement of the Petitioner is rightly being recovered as per law.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
Undisputedly, facts of the case reveal that various schemes were issued from time to time for grant of higher pay scale. Employees of the Board and the petitioner in the light of the Circular dt. 6/5/1999 read with Circular dt. 30/7/1999 was granted the benefit of redesignation under the Scheme vide order dated 15/12/1999. It was clearly mentioned in the aforesaid order that the petitioner will continue to work on his original post ie., Office Assistant
--- 21 ---
Grade 3 keeping in view the provisions of Circular dt. 6/5/1999 and 30/7/1999. The petitioner was not entitled for higher pay scale or revision of pay fixation. In the light of the Scheme the petitioner was never granted higher pay scale before passing of the order dt. 15/12/1999 and he was not entitled to be redesignated as Office Assistant Grade 2 pursuant to Circular dt. 6/5/1999 and 30/7/1999. Not only this, under the time bound promotion scheme, the petitioner was wrongly granted benefit of higher pay scale of the post of Office Asstt. Grade 2 vide order dt. 15/12/1999 whereas he was entitled for the same under the higher pay scale scheme and not under the time bound promotion scheme. Another important aspect of the case is that at the time of issuance of order dt. 15/12/1999 (Annexure P/2) the petitioner was working on the post of Office Assistant Grade 3 and he was not receiving the pay scale of office Assistant Grade 2 and he was not entitled for the pay scale of Office Asstt. Grade 2 and, therefore, wrong extension of benefit of higher pay scale at the time of redesignation was granted
--- 22 ---
vide order dt. 29/12/2007. In fact, by order dt. 29/12/2007, the petitioner was granted second higher pay scale and not the first higher pay scale. The petitioner was wrongly granted pay scale of Section Officer which was the third higher pay scale and it is a case where an employee who was entitled for two higher pay scales has been granted 3 higher pay scales. The respondents have passed a very exhaustive order clarifying all the issues and the order dt. 18/3/2016 which refers to all the scales and the mistake committed by the Department, reads as under :
dk;kZy; dk;Zikyd funs'kd] ¼ba{ks½ e/; izns'k if'pe {ks= fo|qr forj.k daiuh fy-] bUnkSj dza-153@dkfu@b-{ks@LFkk& bUnkSj fnukad 18-03-16 vkns'k i`"BHkwfe eaMy esa fofHkUu Js.kh ds dkfeZdks ds inksUufr esa gksus okys foyac dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, o"kZ 1999 esa eaMy us le;c) inksUufr ;kstuk izkjaHk dj dkfeZdks dks lsokdky ds vk/kkj ij le;c) inksUufr nsus dk fu.kZ; fy;k Fkk rFkk vkns'k dza- 01&07@pkj@11 fn- 06-05-99 ls fl)karr% eaMy }kjk ;g r; fd;k x;k Fkk fd 9 o"kZ dh lsok ds iw.kZ djus rFkk mPp osrueku izkIr djus ij mudh vxyh inksUufr ds in ds uke ds vkxs ^^vfrfjDr** 'kCn tksM+dj u;k inuke fn;k tk;sxkA bl u;s inuke izkfIr ds i'pkr deZpkfj;ksa ds dk;Z esa dksbZ ifjorZu ugha vk;sxkA os ogh dk;Z djrs jgsxs tks orZeku esa dj jgs gSA muds osru ,oa vU; HkRrksa esa Hkh ifjofrZr inuke dk dksbZ izHkko ugh iMs+xkA lkFk gh mudh ofj"Brk vizHkkfor jgsxhA mDr ;kstuk ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr izf'k{k.k vof/k feykdj 15 o"kZ dh lsok ds i'pkr mUgs vxys in inksUufr nh tkosxhA inksUufr ds inuke ds
--- 23 ---
lkFk ¼m-d`-½¼mPphd`r 'kCn dk laf{kIr :i½ tksM+k tkosxkA tSls fd dk;kZy; lgk;d Js.kh&rhu dks izf'k{k.k vof/k feykdj 15 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus ij dk;kZy; lgk;d Js.kh&nks ¼m-d`-½ ds in ij inksUur fd;k tkosxk] ,sls inksUur deZpkjh ogh dk;Z fu"ikfnr djrs jgsaxs tks os vius orZeku in ¼inksUufr ds iwoZ½ in ij dj jgs Fks] tc rd fd os inksUufr okys ij dh fjDrrk gksus ij ml in ij lek;ksftr ugha dj fy;s tkrsA ;kstuk esa ;g Hkh izko/kku fd;k x;k Fkk fd os deZpkjh ftUgksus f}rh; fodYi fu;e ds rgr izf'k{k.k vof/k feykdj 18 o"kZ iw.kZ djus ds i'pkr mPp osrueku izkIr dj fy;k gS muds inuke ds vkxs ^^vfrfjDr** 'kCn tksM+dj u;k inuke fn;k tkosxkA fjDr in ij lek;ksftr dj fy;s x;s dk;kZy; lgk;d Js.kh&nks dks 18 o"khZ; mPp osrueku izkIr gksus ds i'pkr ^^vfrfjDr dk;kZy; lgk;d Js.kh&,d** dk inuke fn;k tkosxkA bl u;s inuke ij mUgs ogh dk;Z djrs jguk iM+sxk tks fd os fiNys in ij dj jgs FksA lkFk gh izf'k{k.k vof/k feykdj dqy 23 o"kZ dh lsok vof/k iw.kZ dj pqds deZpkfj;ksa dks f}rh; inksUufr nh tkosxhA ,sls inksUur deZpkjh ftuds inuke ds vkxs ¼m-d`-½ 'kCn yxk gks mUgsa Hkh 18@25 o"kZ dh lsok ds i'pkr f}rh; fodYi ds varxZr mPp osrueku izkIr djus dh ik=rk gksxhA Li"V gS fd le;c) inksUufr ;kstuk esa lacaf/kr dkfeZd dks mlds ewy in ij gh dk;Zjr ekuk x;k Fkk rFkk mPprj osrueku izkir gksus ij gh inuke ifjorZu fd;k tkuk Fkk ,oa inksUur dkfeZdks dks mPp in ds osrueku esa osru fu/kkZj.k dh ik=rk Hkh ugh FkhA Jh mes'k nyoh] tks rRdkyhu le; esa dk;kZ-lgk-Js.kh&3 ds in ij dk;kZy; {ks=h; HkaMkj] bUnkSj esa inLFk Fks] dks le;c) inksUufr ;kstuk ds varxZr bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k dza- dkfu@ba{ks@LFkk@567 fn- 15-12-99 ls budk in mPphd`r dj dk;kZ-lgk-Js.kh&nks ¼m-d`-½ ds in ij inksUufr iznku dh x;h FkhA ;kstuk ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr =qfVo'k Jh mes'k nyoh dk dk;kZ-lgk-Js.kh&nks ¼mPphd`r½ ds in ij mudh Tokbfuax fnukad 27-12- 1999 ls dk;kZ-lgk-Js.kh&nks ds osrueku 2800&70&3080&90&3440&120& 3800&150&4550&175&5600&225&5825 esa :- 5075@& izfrekg ij osru fu/kkZj.k dj fn;k x;k FkkA Jh mes'k nyoh dks ckn esa v/kh{k.k ;a=h ¼HkaMkj½] bUnkSj ds vkns'k dza- 31 fnukad 24-02-04 ls fu;fer dk;kZ-lgk- Js.kh&nks ds in ij inksUur dj fn;s x;s FksA bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k dza- eqv@ba{ks@LFkk@492 fnukad 29-12-07 ls deZpkjh Jh mes'k nyoh dks 18 o"khZ; izFke fodYi ds varxZr dk;kZ-lgk- Js.kh&,d dk mPp osrueku fnukad 28-12-04 ls Lohd`r fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk f}rh; fodYi ds rgr vkns'k dza- 01&07@4@isuy@3951@tcyiqj fn- 17-07-08 }kjk fnukad 31-12-2007 ls vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh ds in ij mPp osrueku Lohd`r fd;k x;k FkkA bl rjg le;c) inksUufr ;kstuk ds izko/kkuksa ds foifjr dk;kZy; lgk-Js.kh nks ¼m-d`-½ ds in ij osru fu/kkZj.k ds i'pkr iqu% Jh mes'k nyoh dks izFke ,oa f}rh; mPp osrueku dk ykHk Hkh iznku dj fn;k x;k FkkA
--- 24 ---
Jh mes'k nyoh] lfgr vusd vU; dkfeZdksa ds le;c) inksUufr ds osru fu/kkZj.k ds izdj.k laKku esa vkus ij ,sls izdj.kksa esa eaMy }kjk i= daz- 01&07@ikap@,p@353 fnukad 14-01-11 ls ;g Li"Vhdj.k fn;k x;k Fkk fd le;c) inksUufr ;kstuk esa fd, x, osru fu/kkZj.k dks lacaf/kr dkfeZd ds lanHkZ esa osru fu/kkZj.k dh frfFk ls izFke mPp osrueku dk ykHk Lohd`r fd;k x;k ekuk tkdj dk;Zokgh dh tkos rFkk lacaf/kr dkfeZd dks 'ks"k lsokdky esa ek= ,d gh mPp osrueku ¼vFkkZr f}rh; mPp osrueku½ dh ik=rk gksxhA eaMy ls Li"Vhdj.k izkfIr ds mijkar le;c) inksUufr ds ,sls leLr izdj.k lquokbZ] fopkj ,oa fu.kZ; ds fy,] ^dkiksZjsV p;u lfefr* dkiksZjsV dk;kZy;] bUnkSj dks lanfHkZr fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k ,oa Jh mes'k nyoh] dk;kZ-lgk-Js.kh&nks] dk;kZ-dk;Z- la=h] {ks=h; HkaMkj] bUnkSj dks eq[; vfHk;ark dk;kZy;] bUnkSj ds tkod dza- 4058 fn- 07-05-15 ,oa 5339 fn- 11-06-15 ls eaMy }kjk fn, x, Li"Vhdj.k ds vuq:i lwpuk i= izsf"kr dj voxr djk;k x;k fd Jh mes'k nyoh dks le;c) inksUufr ;kstuk esa fnukad 27-12-1999 ls fd;s x;s osru fu/kkZj.k dks izFke mPp osrueku ekuk tkosxk rFkk fnukad 28-12-04 ls Lohd`r izFke mPp osrueku dks f}rh; fodYi ds rgr Lohd`r mPp osrueku ekurs gq, f}rh; fodYi ds rgr vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh ds in dk Lohd`r mPp osrueku okil fy;k tkdj Hkqxrku dh xbZ leLr /kujkf'k dh olwyh dh tkosxh] vr% ;fn os dksbZ vkifRr izLrqr djuk pkgrk gS rks uksfVl fnukad 07-05-2015 dh izkfIr ls 7 fnu esa eq[; vfHk;ark ¼ba{ks½] bUnkSj dks vko';d :i ls izLrqr djsa rFkk vkifRr izLrqr djus ds i'pkr ;fn os O;fDrxr lquokbZ Hkh pkgh gS rks dkiksZjsV p;u lfefr ds le{k fn- 19-06-15 dks dkiksZjsV dk;kZy; bUnkSj esa mifLFkr gksA dkiksZjsV p;u lfefr }kjk vkifRr;ksa ij lquokbZ] fopkj ,oa fu.kZ; %& ukfVl fnukad 07-05-15 ,oa uksfVl fn- 11-6-15 Jh mes'k nyoh dks ;Fkkle; izkIr gks x, FksA uksfVl fn- 7-5-15 ds izR;qRrj esa muds } kjk fn- 14-5-15 dks fuEukuqlkj fyf[kr vkifRr;ka izLrqr dh x;h Fkh %& − a. eaMy ds vkns'k dza- 01&07@pkj@11] tcyiqj fn- 06-05-99 ds rkjrE; esa eaMy }kjk i= dza- 01&07@IV@19 fn- 30-07-99 }kjk Li"Vhdj.k tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] ftldk mYys[k uksfVl esa dgh ugha fd;k x;k gSA − b. eaMy ds i= dza- 01&07@IV@19 fn- 30-07-99 esa of.kZr iSjk dzekad ¼A½ ds vuqlkj 15 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus okys deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, fudkys tkus okys vkns'k dk izk:i ^ch* Hkh layXu gS] ftlds vuqlkj inksUufr iznku dh x;h] ftlesa dk;kZ-lgk-Js.kh&nks ds ij dk osrueku Li"V :i ls vafdr fd;k x;k FkkA osrueku vafdr djus dk vk'k; gh ;g Fkk fd vafdr osrueku esa inksUufr i'pkr~ dkfeZd dk osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tk,A ;fn osru fu/kkZj.k ugha fd;k tkuk Fkk rks
--- 25 ---
inksUufr dk vkSfpR; D;k Fkk \ c. os eaMy ds ifji= dza- 01&07@IV@19 fn- 30-07-99 ds iSjk dzekad ¼A½ dh Js.kh esa vkrh gS] bl dkj.k mUgsa dk;kZ-lgk-Js.kh&nks ds in ij inksUur dj osrueku dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k Fkk tks fd iwoZorhZ eaMy ds vkns'k dza- 01&07@IV@19 fn- 30-07-99 ds vuqlkj fu;ekuqdwy gSA d. fn, x, uksfVl fnukad 07-05-15 ds iSjk dza- 02 esa iwoZorhZ eaMy ds vkns'k dza- 01&07@IV@11 fn- 06-05-99 dh dafMdk 2 ,oa 3 dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] fdUrq iwoZorhZ eaMy }kjk i= dza- 01&07@IV@19 fn- 30- 07-99 ds ek/;e ls tkjh Li"Vhdj.k dk mYys[k ugha gSA e. eaMy ds i= fnukad 30-07-99 ds iSjk dza- ¼AAA½ esa mYys[k vuqlkj os deZpkjh ftUgsa 9@18 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus ij mPp osrueku izkIr gks pqdk gS mUgsa inuke ds vkxs ^vfrfjDr* 'kCn tksMk tkuk gSA mDr Li"Vhdj.k fnukad rd ,d Hkh mPp osrueku izkIr ugha gqvk Fkk] bl dkj.k iSjk dza- ¼AAA½ eq> ij ykxw ugha gksrs gSA f. uksfVl fnukad 07-05-15 ds iSjk 3 esa iwoZorhZ eaMy }kjk tkjh i= dza- 01&07@ikap@,p@353 fn- 14-01-11 ds Li"Vhdj.k dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS tks eq> ij ykxw ugha gksrk gSA g. eaMy ds i= dza- 01&07@IV@19 fn- 30-07-99 esa n'kkZ;h x;h ik=rk vuqlkj dk;kZy; lgk-Js.kh&nks ds in ij inksUufr inku dj i= esa n'kkZ;s vuqlkj osrueku fn;k x;k gS tks fu;ekuqdwy gS ,oa blds i'pkr~ iwoZorhZ eaMy ds vkns'k dza- 01&13@5586@33 fn- 30-08-07 ,oa 01&13@5586@5 fn- 29-02-08 ds rkjrE; esa inksUufr vLohdkj djus okys dkfeZdksa dks fnukad 29-09-03 ls mPp osrueku ds izFke fodYi izkIr djus dk ykHk iznku fd;k x;k ,oa blh vk/kkj ij esjs }kjk 18 o"kZ ds izFke mPp osrueku ds fodYi dk vkosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftls eq[; vfHk;ark dk;kZy; ds vkns'k }kjk ys[kk izf'k{k.k dh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ djus dh vfuok;Z 'krZ ds lkFk Lohdkj fd;k x;kA rRi'pkr 25 o"kZ ds f}rh; fodYi dk mPp osrueku dk vkosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k ftls eaMy ds vkns'k }kjk Lohd`r dj f}rh; mPp osrueku iznku fd;k x;k mlesa dksbZ =qfV u gksrs gq, fu;ekuqlkj gSA h. eq>s iznku dh x;h inksUufr] izFke ,oa f}rh; mPp osrueku fu;ekuqlkj ,oa fu;ekuqdwy gS vr% fn, x, uksfVl dks fujLr fd;k tk,A Jh mes'k nyoh fnukad 19-06-15 dks dkiksZjsV p;u lfefr ds le{k Hkh O;fDrxr~ :i ls mifLFkr gq, Fks] tgka muds }kjk fyf[kr esa ntZ djk;h x;h vkifRr;ksa ds laca/k esa muds i{k dks lquk x;kA pwafd Jh mes'k nyoh lfgr vU; izHkkfor gksus okys dkfeZdksa }kjk mBk;h x;h vkifRr;ka iwoZorhZ eaMy ds vkns'k@ifji=ksa esa fufgr izko/kkuksa dh O;k[;k ls lacaf/kr Fkh vr% iwoZorhZ eaMy ds vkns'kksa@ ifji=ksa ds izdk'k esa izHkkfor dkfeZdksa
--- 26 ---
}kjk mBk;h x;h vkifRr;ksa dk lw{erkiwoZd voyksdu dj viuk vfHker nsus gsrq dkiksZjsV dk;kZy;] bUnkSj ds vkns'k dza- 427 fnukad 10-08-15 ls ,d leh{kk lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;k Fkk ftlds }kjk nh xbZ fjiksVZ dkiksZjsV p;u lfefr ds le{k izLrqr dh x;h FkhA Jh mes'k nyoh }kjk izLrqr fyf[kr vkifRr;ksa ds voyksdu] mudh O;fDrxr~ lquokbZ ,oa leh{kk lfefr }kjk izLrqr vfHker ij fopkjksijkar dkiksZjsV p;u lfefr ds fu"d"kZ fuEukqulkj gS %& 1- iwoZorhZ eaMy }kjk tkjh ifji= dza- 01&07@IV@19 fn- 30-07-99 ls ifji= dza- 01&07@IV@19 fn- 06-05-99 ds fu;e ,oa 'krksZ dks foLr`r :i ls mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS rFkk bl ifji= esa ,slk dgha Hkh mYys[k ugha Fkk fd le;c) inksUufr nsus ds mijkar osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tkuk gSA bl ifji= ds lkFk layXu izk:iksa esa osrueku mYys[k dk vk'k; Hkh ;g ugha Fkk fd bl osrueku ij osru fu/kkZj.k dj fn;k tkosA rRle; bu ifji=ksa ds ikyu esa eSnkuh {ks=ksa ls tkjh fd, tkus okys vkns'kksa esa ,d:irk ds vk'k; ls izk:i tksM+s x, FksA ifji= esa ,Slk dqN Hkh ys[k ugha gS tks ewy ifji= dza 01&07@IV@11 fn- 06-05-99 ds izko/kkuksa ls fojks/kkHkklh gksA 2- ewy ifji= fnukad 06-05-99 ds laca/k esa bl vkns'k dh i`"BHkwfe esa mYys[k fd;k tk pqdk gS ftlls Li"V gS fd mPp osrueku izkIr deZpkfj;ksa dks gh le;c) inksUufr nh tkuk Fkh rFkk fdlh izdkj dk osru fu/kkZj.k ugha fd;k tkuk FkkA ifji= fn- 06-05-99 ,oa fn- 30-07-99 ds fdz;kao;u esa eSnkuh {ks=ksa dh dfBukbZ ,oa eSnkuh {ks=ksa }kjk =qfViw.kZ :i ls osru fu/kkZj.k dj fn, tkus ds dkj.k eaMy }kjk Li"Vhdj.k dza- 353 fn- 14-01-11 tkjh dj ;g crk;k x;k Fkk fd le;c) inksUufr ;kstuk ds rgr~ inksUur dkfeZdks dks vius ewy in ij gh dk;Zjr ekuk tkrk gS vr% ftu izdj.kksa esa osru fu/kkZj.k dj fn;k x;k gS mls izFke mPp osrueku ekuk tkuk ,oa lacaf/kr dkfeZd dks 'ks"k lsok dky esa ek= ,d gh mPp osrueku ¼vFkkZr f}rh; mPp osrueku½ dh ik=rk gksuk funsZf'kr fd;k x;k FkkA bu funsZ'kksa ds ikyu esa eaMy }kjk Hkh iwoZ esa vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa ds izFke fodYi ds :i es Lohd`r mPp osrueku ds :i esa Lohd`r mPp osrueku ekus tkus lacaf/kr la'kksf/kr vkns'k dza- 01&07@pkj@791 fn- 03- 02-11 tkjh fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr rF;ksa ds n`f"Vxr~ dkiksZjsV p;u lfefr }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd Jh mes'k nyoh dks tkjh fd, x, uksfVl iw.kZr% fu;ekuqdwy gS rFkk tkjh fd, x, uksfVlksa ds vuq:i dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxkA vr% tSlk fd izLrkfor fd;k x;k Fkk Jh mes'k nyoh fd le;c) inksUufr ;kstuk ds varxZr dk;kZ-lgk-Js.kh nks ¼m-d`-½ ds in ij dh x;h inksUufr ds mijkar inHkkj xzg.k fn- 27-12-1999 ls fd, x, osru fu/kkZj.k dks ,rn~ }kjk fujLr djrs gq, blh fnukad ls izFke fodYi ds rgr~ Lohd`r mPp osrukeu ekuk tkuk vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izFke fodYi
--- 27 ---
ds rgr~ bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k dza- eqv@ba{ks@LFkk@492 fnukad 29-12- 07 }kjk fnukad 28-12-04 ls Lohd`r dk;kZ-lgk-Js.kh&,d in ds Lohd`r mPp osrueku dks f}rh; fodYi ds rgr~ mPp osrueku ekuk tkuk vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gSA eaMy vkns'k dza- 01&07@4@isuy@3951@ tcyiqj fnukad 17-07-08 }kjk fnukad 31-12-2007 ls vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh ds in ds Lohd`r mPp osrueku dks ,rn~ }kjk fujLr djrs gq, bl mPp osrueku ds QyLo:i fnukad 31-12-2007 ls fn;s x;s leLr foRrh; ykHkksa dh olwyh Jh mes'k nyoh ds ekfld osru ls usV osru dk 15 izfr'kr izfrekg dh nj ls lacaf/kr dk;kZy; }kjk fd;k tkuk vksnf'kr fd;k tkrk gSA dk;Zikyd funs'kd ¼ba-{ks-½ The aforesaid order has been passed in consonance with the various schemes framed from time to time and as the petitioner was granted one extra higher pay scale, the same has been withdrawn that too after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after taking into account all the grounds raised by the petitioner.
Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) in paragraph 5 to 8 has held as under :
5. In Shyam Babu Verma's case (Supra), this Court while observing that the petitioners-therein were not entitled to the higher pay scales, had come to the conclusion that since the amount has already been paid to the petitioner, for no fault of theirs, the said amount shall not be recovered by the respondent-
nion of India. The observations made by this Court in the said case are as under: "Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs.330-480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs.330-560 but as they have received the scale of Rs.330-560 since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale
--- 28 ---
is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from January 1, 1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to them. (emphasis supplied)."
6. In Sahib Ram Verma's case (Supra), this Court once again held that although the appellanttherein did not possess the required educational qualification, yet the Principal granting him the relaxation, had paid his salary on the revised pay scale. This Court further observed that this was not on account of mis- representation made by the appellant but by a mistake committed by the Principal. In a fact situation of that nature, the Court was pleased to observe that the amount already paid to the appellant need not be recovered. In the words of the Court:
"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 appellant cannot be held to be fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant."
7. In our considered view, the observations made by the Court not to recover the excess amount paid to the appellant-therein were in exercise of its extra-ordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which vest the power in this Court to pass equitable orders in the ends of justice.
8. In Chandi Prasad Uniyal's case (Supra), a specific issue was raised and canvassed. The issue was whether the appellant- therein can retain the amount received on the basis of irregular/wrong pay fixation in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. The Court after taking into consideration the various decisions of this Court had come to the conclusion that even if by mistake of the employer the amount is paid to the employee and on a later date if the employer after proper determination of the same discovers that theexcess payment is made by mistake or negligence, the excess payment so made could be recovered. While holding so this Court observed at paragraphs 14 and 16 as under:
"14.We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "taxpayers' money" which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see whey the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due
--- 29 ---
to various reason like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.
16. The appellant in the appeal will not fall in any of these exceptional categories, over and above, there was a stipulation in the fixation order that in the condition of irregular/wrong pay fixation, the institution in which the appellants were working would be responsible for recovery of the amount received in excess from the salary/pension. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. However we order that excess payment made be recovered from the appellants salary in 12 equal monthly instalments."
This Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the respondents does not warrant any interference. However, the fact remains that the respondents have not filed any document to demonstrate before this Court that the petitioner has given an undertaking in the matter of pay fixation while higher pay scales were granted under the time bound upgradation Schemes. The petitioner and other identically placed persons are retired employees who have retired from Class 3 posts and the recovery is bound to cause undue hardship to the retired employees.
Resultantly, in the light of the judgment delivered by
--- 30 ---
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (supra), recovery ordered by the respondents is hereby quashed. However, pay fixation is upheld. The petitioner shall be entitled for all terminal dues and other dues keeping in view the order dt. 18/3/2016. The present Writ Petition stands partly allowed.
A copy of this order be placed in the record of the connected Writ Petitions.
(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE KR