W.P.No. 1183 / 2006 (s) 19-05-2010 Shri Sharad Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by
the notice dated 11-11-2005 issued by the respondent No. 3
proposing to reduce the pay scale of the petitioner from
Rs.4100-8900 to Rs.3680-7700 of the post of Lab. Technician
as the petitioner has wrongly been granted pay in the pay
scale of Rs.4100-8900 and, therefore, excess amount was
paid to him.
The petitioner submits that the higher scale of
Rs.4100-8900 was granted to the petitioner by the
respondents on their own account and no fraud was played by
the petitioner in the same. It is submitted that the mistake, if
any, occurred on the part of the respondents and the petitioner
is not responsible for playing any fraud or mis-representation
for obtaining a higher pay scale and in such circumstance the
amount already paid to the petitioner cannot be recoverd by
the respondent-authorities. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P.No.
1066/2006(s) (Smt. G.K.Pahuja v. State of M.P. and three
others), decided on 4-10-2007 wherein the same claim has
been allowed by this Court relying upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in the cases of Sahib Ram Vs. State of
Haryana and others, 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 18 and Col.
B.J.Akkara (Retd.) Vs. Government of India and others,
2006 (11) SCC 709 which judgment has been affirmed by a
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 12/2008 (M.P.State
Electricity Board and two others v. Smt. Usha Paul and
another) decided on 20-8-2008.
W.P.No. 1180/2006(s)
The aforesaid decisions and the quashment of the
impugned order is not disputed by the learned counsel for the
respondents.
In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner
is allowed to the extent that no recovery pursuant to the
impugned notice dated 11-11-2005 of the excess amount paid
to the petitioner shall be made by the respondents in view of
the law laid down by the Supreme Court referred to in the
aforesaid writ petition and the writ appeal relying on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sahib Ram
(supra) and Smt. Usha Paul (supra). However, it is clarified
that the aforesaid legal position only relates to recovery to be
made from the petitioner and has no applicability to the future
application of the order passed by the respondent-authority by
properly fixing the pay of the petitioner on the post of Lab.
Technician.
With the aforesaid observations the petition filed by the
petitioner stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
C.C. as per rules.
(R.S.Jha)
Judge
mct