IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P.(S) No. 4470 of 2008
...
Dhananjay Prasad Singh ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Dr. S.N.Pathak, Advocate.
For the Respondents : - Mr. Rahul Gupta, J.C. to A.G.
...
C.A.V on : 06.05.2009 Pronounced on: 08.05.2009
4/08.05.2009
Heard Dr. S.N.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and
J.C. to A.G. for the respondents.
2. Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the
order dated 20.09.2006 (Annexure-1) passed by the Superintendent
of Police (Wireless), Ranchi whereby recovery of certain amounts
have been made from the petitioner’s salary on the ground that such
amount was paid in excess to him.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that no excess amount was
paid to him since to the petitioner’s belief, he was entitled to pay
protection since persons junior to him were getting higher pay scale
and it was only by way of pay protection, that the petitioner’s scale,
with other similarly situated persons, were increased in the form of
personal pay. The petitioner’s further contention is that even
otherwise, such amount was not paid on account of any
misrepresentation or fraud practiced by him.
4. Dr. S.N.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that as a matter of fact, the difference in the pay scale of the
petitioner and that of his juniors was to the extent of Rs. 1050/-. In
order to ensure pay protection, the petitioner was compensated by
the payment of the difference amount by way of his personal pay
protection (R.P.P.) with effect from 01.01.1996 and such amount was
paid to the petitioner continuously. The payment of the R.P.P. to the
petitioner was not made on account of any act of fraud or
misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. Furthermore, the
impugned order appears to have been passed only on the basis of
some promptings received from the Finance Department of the State
-2-
Government of Bihar communicated vide letter dated 01.02.1991.
The petitioner had adequately explained in his show cause replies
that no excess amount towards R.P.P. was paid to him and such
fixation of R.P.P. was only by way of pay protection. Learned
counsel submits further that the impugned order dated 20.09.2006
was a general order made applicable to several other police
personnel, some of whom had challenged the same by filing writ
applications before this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 7474 of 2006. Upon
considering the entire issues, this Court vide its order dated
10.01.2007 passed in the aforementioned writ application, had
quashed the impugned order dated 20.09.2006. Learned counsel
adds further that earlier, in the case of Baleshwar Singh Vs. State of
Jharkhand & Ors. 2005(3) JLJR 518, the same issues came up for
consideration before this Court and this Court had observed that the
amount of R.P.P. i.e. reducible pay protection, was paid to the writ
petitioners by order of the competent authority to protect their pay
against the juniors. It was also observed that the fixation made by
the said order was accepted for a long time and there was no fraud
or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners in getting the said
pay protection and as such, the amount paid by way of said pay
protection, cannot be recovered.
5. Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondents, but learned counsel for the respondents would submit
that the pay scales of the police personnel employed in the Wireless
Section was revised by the Government of Bihar in 1999 in the light
of the Central Government pay scales, whereafter the R.P.P. which
was earlier fixed and paid, was withdrawn with effect from the date
of revision of the pay scales. Inspite of the withdrawal, the amount
of R.P.P. by way of pay protection, continued to be availed by the
petitioner and it was this excess payment which was sought to be
recovered from the petitioner’s salary.
6. As has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the same impugned order dated 20.09.2006 was earlier
challenged by several other police personnel employed in the
Wireless Section of the Police Department vide W.P.(S) No. 7474 of
-3-
2006. Upon considering the facts of the case and the stand taken by
the respondent State Government, this Court in the aforementioned
case had quashed the impugned order in respect of the writ
petitioners therein. The same grounds do apply in the case of the
petitioner also since the facts of the present case are fully covered by
the judgement passed in W.P.(S) 7474 of 2006 and in the earlier case
of Baleshwar Singh (Supra) passed by this Court.
7. In view of the above, this writ application is allowed. The
impugned order vide Memo No. 137 dated 20.09.2006 (annexure-1)
is quashed to the extent it affects the petitioner. If any amount has
already been deducted on the basis of the said impugned order, the
same shall be refunded to the petitioner within four weeks from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
respondent State.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Birendra/N.A.F.R.