1
IN THE HIGK counm OF KARuAmAKA.Am,§Ag¢5i§Ri*%%_
BA$ED Tnxs THE 15" nay as J¢£i;*éaé§ ; V V
PRnsEHf T "
THE HON'BLE M. JUS?IQE'kL$,'¥§Q$fififiTHj
was HON'BLE $§E Jfisfi¢fiffi§§:euALIMAma
wnzr A2PzAL"fib§3723;2ea4 {s~REs)
BETWEEN :
Ex-:m@w§ HA#;CLKfGD""
E.Jbhnséhis/oflatéaponnuswamy,
58 years, Zi6n Hafisé; '
flb.129/I, xgmhcxassy"
Dom1ur"vi11age,Q V_;
Bangaloré~71.5 I .. APPELLANT
*=w,'7 }By:Adgocafiéwéri.M.Raghavendxa Amhar)
1; Union ¢f India,
Rflby its secretary,
4 Mini$try of Befenca,
"v$outh Block, nae post,
._figw Dlhi--11G 011.
"m ::2} Air officer hommandingwin-Chief,
Maintenance command, may,
Kagpur.
2
3. Dy.ControJ.1er of Defence Accountfi
Air Force, Subrcto Park,
New delhi.
4. Air officer Commanding 1 . ..
Air Force Central Acaouni-,s".offi e.§_. * '
Subroto Park, *'~ A ' J'
New Delhi-110 910.
5. Commanding Offi-ger
26 ED Air Forc'e,.dA' _ 3
Vimanapura Post, V '
Banga1ore:17.vmw»_] ~d;_ ';,'%' RESPONDENTS
(By Adendgte er; $.§eqh§dg§s 5
" fv_Sri,Sfiivapgabhu Hiremath)
1:» '-.._----nu.
. ,.--is filed under Se-c.4 of
The Karna.taka"'-- High "Court: Act to set: aside the
ord:_pasSed in WP fib.4019/2004 dated 9.7.2004.
AppeaJ';"":i's coming on for final hearing
<V this day, Hanavnamn J. delivered the follewingz
JUDGMENT
dd was the petitioner: in WP
Ne.”4’€§19/2004 which petition was filed by him
{ “challenging Amnexure-5 dated 5.11.2003 whexein
the respondents brought down the salary payable
Si/d
04,»
4., <3/fp'V""*"i
3
to him from 2.9.4030»-oo to Rs.35oo-ecu}
order was passed on the… .__audjiE””
raised. It was ordered tfiat
pay–sca.1e on account ‘”~…ft:he “r:;euonT’nz:em§33.’tior’: of’
5″‘ Pay Cozmniss:1’.on;_,. 148:%_.:VVV:o3:’_ “‘.Qea1.énés,s jillowanoe
had been wrongly ‘,”___ aalculating
the basic: sgl-.=3._.ry l— against the
basic and neagmess
Al1owaJnoeV_A””V.o;f;:?:;,;R¥rs This order was
quest.-Loned ._ .’ ‘appellant. Respandent
conte.étedotheVV”wfi’t” gfietition on the ground that
whifiié ups;-zssifig V-..{:1;e’A.order as per Axmexurewfi based
objection pay has been rightly
order was passed to remover
V .’ the’ e.xé.:os:§ V armunt disbursed to the appellant.
‘A single Judge after hearing the parties
field that no error has been oozmtitteei by
tfié respondent in rewfixing the pay–s<:a3.e on
«account of the calculation error committed
£4
earlier . Accordingly , writ pet; 3339.5
dismissed. aaalzenging the 1ag'¥a::11t;3fe'
correctness cf the order p;iseé<1« by
single Judge, present * " VV .
2. Befere us counsel the has
raised two: questic’;:r.:V::Ls;A to him,
based. en the .orde;.,.. passed by
the respo. ” upay was :-fixed
consid;ei:?iTr1g.:.:eV?3;he3fifV”he=.:fhas re—-employed after
his Army earlier and that
earliefr citzarfiaifting the basic salary
pen.=éi”n_’—ehagi and even though he
9°:~za;s _ “for Bearness Allowance and other
elm’ ntéei ‘ilfor the purpose of benefits.
‘~,.«, ifihereftagcfe, an order was passed an 14.13.1992.
fiirther contends that as per Annexuzre-H
3.2.1993 pay scale was properly fixed.
» __In the circumstances, he contends that the
learned single Judge did. not consider the case
5
of the appellant properly and no ertgiféé’
committed while fixing the pay
and audit objecztions were:’éfrcnas–.m5′; L
further contends that ”
excess amount drawn Ii}? neat
have been ‘”;;:as not
responsible for and no
fraud has in making the
scale of pay
erronaautsllft.-“.V -upon the judgment of the
:”‘—.:.3′,”:+4:4i.Jx’.z1′.e-.;i.c>n Bench Judgment of
théké .. wart’ A. ::<ARNA*rA1<A POWER Ammsnzssxon
LTD. Vs. HARAYA AND ANOTHER
BB 20.6.20G'?) , he requests this
lczoiirt direct the respondent to refund the
.t"aua<:§unt"' recmrered exroneously. Per contra,
"t.:f:Vé}un–5el for the respondents supporting the
"oréar of the learned single Judge czzontends that
the Deaxcness Allowaxme payable to the appellant
7
pay by the respondents . Considepino
objecztion statement filed by the rasgéendents
para-‘5 & 6, learned single has ‘
held that there was an er:14:r_>1::”‘.V_ .c;:re1..>:t;l_”in’~
calculating the actua1.WP,Dearnessl Aiillewancewl
payable to the appe1Vlant””‘a1ici sane “iias been
rightly rectified. H we cannot
interfere ‘j:helA’oJ;d:e’r the learned
single Vt5§1e”writ petition so
far as:’;v£i;s:at’:i,-:::r.~.__vof ‘s.c_§a:l_._e- of pay is concerned.
5.. Se ‘;as_’v~.theV*~i°ecovery of excess salary
“”*pa.iti.j respendent is ooncerned, aciznittedly
been placed before the court to
sl’1.é>1~;r_rt at the instance of the appellant
2;-esponcieizts were made to pay the excess amount.
calculation of DA payable to the
was on account of the mistake of the
.. Doificials of the respondent, appellant cannot
be blamech If it is so, we are of the opinion