IN THE IIIIGI:-I COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010
PRESENT
THE IIONBLE MR. JUSTICE) v.G.SABIIAH.ITj :
AND
THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE:vB'Kf.'NI«IG;ARATII'I§A fl *
WRIT PETITION No.4o4o9}2(_iQ:§ (S-CAT; '~ " V'
BETWEEN:
I.TI--IE AIR FORCE CENTRAL E -
ACCOUNTS OFFICE (CEL._Lj--102}, "
SUBROTO PARK, ;
NEW DELHI-- 110010. '
2_THE _
AIR CRAFT AI\f{iSYSV':1fEMS«..&' _
TESTING ESTABLIS-,FIMENf1fS~--,.. ' -
AIR FORCE, - -- V
Vl'MANAPURAPOS'T, I
EAI\IGALORE"'~» 5'60_c;=.17;_ PETITIONERS
':'IB'$:.I RVEERENDRA SHARMA AND SRI
N.AIyIARESI»I., Apvs.)
ANI):""
¢ [SR1 GMAIIENDRA,
~. i S,(O.M.D.GANGADHAR,
4 vfAGED..ABOU'F 40 YEARS,
" _ WORKING AS DRAUGHTSMAN GR. 1.
-~=O;;o.TI~IE AIR CRAFT AND SYSTEMS,
TESTING ESTABLISIIIVIENTS.
" VIMANAPURA.
«~ BANGALORE W 560 017. ...RESI>ONDENT
(BY SR1 BASAVARAJ VEERABHADRA. ADV.)
=i<=i<*=i¢*
N)
l
'nns'wRn#pETnrmvIs FEED PRAnNo To SET
mmmnnsommnornwxmrmmaxnmoA&mmmm
DT.30/6/2003 VIDE3 AI\INEx.A. To THE ExTI3:NTf"--«_VoIf
RESTRAINING THE PETITIONERS FROM REV}¥§t5tINt} _
EXCESS AMOUNT PAID To THE RESPONDENT;
THIS PETITION COMING Oi_\l…..F_OR _–HEAi121’i’I(3=TiIIs_”‘
DAY. SABHAHIT J., MADE THE F’OA_LLQWIfNlG,;~.’ ‘
ORDERVA ‘”
This writ petition is the ~« Air
Force Central Accour1ts”‘~._Ot’fice,_ .,u{n)riginal lHAlppiication
No.68;/2602* ..}V:>_r1 the of Central Administrative
Tribunal, Ba.nlgal,orel ._B.;1ngaiore, {he1’einafter, referred
to as the l’d’l”ribur1ai–.’},Arbeiiibg aggrieved by the order dated
the application filed by t.he
lreslporident-piaintiff has been disposed of by setting asicie
the V18/6/2002 at Annexure ‘A– 1.9’ and directing
the respaoridents in the application, i.e., the petitioners
it l..fhere’i:n not to recover the amount proposed in the impugned
— and the amount if any, recovered from the applicant
wconseqtient on the process of recovery initiated by the
respondents be refunded to him. It is also ordered that the
re
applicant. would not be entitled to the pay scale of
Rs. 5500-9000 .
2. The respondent. herein filed Original”Applicaltionj
No.684~/2002 being aggrieved by theendo1*se’n1e~nt
per Annexure ‘A~ 19′ dated 1 / 7200227sta–t_ing t,h.a;,t tiherev was it
a mistake in fixing the pay scale”o;f’the petitiorre1§’.inlV'”t.lheHseale
of Rs.14oo-40-18oo«5o–2.s_o0 .a’:’:’ci”i_jt}ie>_gaid was
rectified and wherefore,’24″he_”\vasfV;’l1lab2taV:_pay a sum of
Rs.86.164/– the month of
July 2002 as- pay slip of July 2002.
Itiis’ of applicant that his pay
was fixedin the seyalefotiRs$’1?OO–204O on 8/6/1987. As he
had produced”a_:Vcertificatel”tor having passed the qualifying
‘2 0’ ‘e.?<an1in'at_i011 zwhich" "" "enabled him to three advance
pay scale of Rs. .1 400-2300 was fixed.
“.l’h.e’ pay the said promoted post has also been fixed
‘and there was no mistake in fixing the pay scale and in any
A the matter since there is no fault on the part of the
___”‘:”applicanti the order for recovery cannot be sustained. The
uflapplication was resisted by the petitioners by contending
that there was a mistake while fixing the pay scale and the
same has been recovered it was found that certain salary
W
,1
.._4_
in t.he said pay scale was wrongly fixed and thereafter, his
salary has been fixed in the promotional post on the basis of
the said pay scale.
4». The Tribunal after considering the
the learned counsel appearing for the partiesfiiilplielldvi’lutl1e_l:’ M
contentions of the petitioners herein-‘in’ so ‘far as_,.itl 1=elated}tol’v-.
refixing of the salary. However,
already paid shall not be recoyer_ed_as iniistake
on the part of the applicant as rendered to the
satisfaction of the petitioners.ai1;df’;.ass a mistake on
the part of the recovery would
be frornp the .sr4e’cVt:ifi-cation if any after giving an
oppo1’tunit;yly__oi”Vv to the respondent. Being
_ aggri.eyede.by the aforesaid portion of the order passed by the
30/6/2003 in so far as it relates to the
t.lje”‘amount already paid shall not be recovered
as Anne.Y_i5.1’e ‘A~19’, this writ petition is filed.
V is We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
.l tliepetitioiiers and the learned counsel appearing for the
l V” “respondent.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
contended that the ‘l’ribunal held that there was a mistake in
igégg
ti
V been
fixing the pay scale and having accepted the same,___ the
quashing of recovery of the amount was not justified
amount had been paid by mistake, the
entitled to recover the same. in supportbofhis”conte’nti’0n’;.11e»r.v
has relied upon a decision of the Irlo.n’bel_’eSupreme”‘Co’u:it’in;’
case of State of Haryana and’ c:.r_1other_ -?L-.s,-
Saharwat and others {AIR {8} and also
V.Gangaram «vs.» Regi,§fi.al ‘Ijiréctor and others
[(1 997] 6 SCC 1
7’. -v.._furth:e_’1′ Hsubrnitted that the
tribunals..0rders_V”isl*–J;iable_jltoivbe ‘:–3.etH_alside as it is erroneous
and the:7petit:ioners’:’are to recover the excess salary
paid to them which rnistake and said mistake has
tln-.4vAresponse to the arguments of the learned
eourisel petitioners. learned cousnel for the
V _ respondent’submitted that there was no mistake on the part
the respondent’.. He had produced the certificate and the
of the certificate was not disputed and it was
‘:l_”aceepted and therefore. he was entitled to three advance
it increments and hence, there was no mistake on the part of
the respondent. However. the Tribunal has up held the
rectification of mistake but has rightly directed that the
arnount already paid shall not be recovered and if a1I1otn1t’~i..5
already recovered. it shall be refunded on the t.
impugned order. In support of his coritentioiif’l’1e:has’=re1.ied.V
upon the latest judgment of the Ho.n’bl.eSlup’1fen1e”‘Cou;it
K.Vasudevcm —-vs.– Mohan N_M’a_li arid,_
(L 82. S) 90), wherein it has beenllhelci that: the wrong
promotion had been rectified, the
question of recovering extra made to the
person wrongly” and submitted
that the order by justified.
We consideration to the rival
content.ions*– of lthelealrnedy icounsel appearing for parties and
scrutinized the” Arriaterial on record in the light of the
lprineilpluesllaiddyown by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
” “=llO.v of the {act that the judgment relied upon
‘by the learned counsel for the respondent, which is a later
ll_d,ecisi-on the case K.Vasudeuan Hus; Mohan N.MaIi and
..llo’.-O’t’i*tersA, supra, it is clear that even where Wrongful promotion
” ‘has been rectified, question of recovery of the excess amount
paid would not arise and in the present case. it is not
disputed that by order dated 8/ 6/ 1987. pay scale was fixed
‘X1
at Rs. 1400-2300 and thereafter. promotion was given” and
consequently, pay scale was fixed on that basis.
the petitioners found that there was a mistake .
said pay scale and the mistake hasbeen re_cti1″ie{:if,., it
upheld by the Tribunal and the mere fact it
upheld the rectification of the»’n1i_stakeyv’ouid the
petitioners herein to recover ‘atnotintilrpaid by
mistake as it is well settled in the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court having regard
to the facts oflcase mistake on the
part of the n’o§t=their case that a faise
represeajntatiloni.fiiad.lEt)leen:v’inade the mistake was on
the part’of the and wherefore, the same
was rectified _:and_.J– the Vlslame is not challenged by the
‘ ‘ ..res’pondAent”h.ereinlaiidvit has become final. However, so far
already paid pursuant to the fixation of pay
scale, SVi.7f.1′<ié:'1–V_ there was no mistake on the part of the
lgresponderit and mistake was on the part of the petitioners
is permitted to be rectified the same is only
prospective effect and accordingly, we find that the orders
passed by the Tribunal impugned in this writ petition is
justified and does not suffer from any error or illegality so as
9%'?
to call for intelference in this petition in exercise of the; Writ
jurisdictiion of this Court.
11. Acc01*dir1g1y, this writ petition is disn1i”ss:ed;V’TV..
_ §U3g§
*mvs