Trilochan Singh vs Chairman Cum Managing Director & … on 11 September, 2009

                              1

        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5124/2009
                    Trilochan Singh
                           vs
                   RRVPN Ltd. & Ors.
Date of order : 11.9.2009

             HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.

Mr. SKM Vyas, for the petitioner.

Mr. AK Khatri, for the respondents.

The petitioner was appointed on 7th March, 1975 as

Instrument Mechanic in the services of the then Rajasthan

State Electricity Board. The petitioner joined on the post on

13.3.1975. He was given revised pay scale of Rs.240-378

w.e.f. 1st April, 1977 and, thereafter, he was also given post

of SBA-II and, thereafter also he was given revised pay sale

time to time. From 1st Sept., 1986 the petitioner was given

benefit of jump and given pay scale of Rs.1225/-. The

petitioner then retired on 31.1.2009 from service then

respondent became wise and says that petitioner was

wrongly fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1225/- on 1st Sept.,

1986, whereas he should have been put in pay scale of

Rs.1200/-. On this premise, after retirement of the

petitioner an order has been passed for making correction

in the service book of the petitioner as well as for recovery

of the excess amount paid to the petitioner.
2

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

reasons given in the reply.

The petitioner who was appointed in the year 1975

and has been fixed in pay scale by specific order in the

year 1986 and retired on 31.1.2001 cannot be subjected to

this treatment of withdrawing the benefits, which were

given to the petitioner as back as in the year 1986. The

order fixing the petitioner in particular pay scale could not

have been altered without giving opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner and that too also could have been done in

reasonable time. The respondents have no right to

straightway pass the order for making any correction in the

service book of the petitioner resulting into withdrawal of

benefit of pay fixation and consequential recovery of the

amount from the petitioner.

Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed.

The respondents are restrained from recovering any such

amount from the petitioner and if the amount has not been

paid to the petitioner on that ground, the same be paid to

the petitioner.

[PRAKASH TATIA], J.

cpgoyal/-