NAND KISHORE SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants joined service as Plant Protection Supervisors in the department of Agriculture, State of Bihar. They were initially appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 115-165. It was revised to Rs. 220-315 with effect from 1/1/197171. It transpires from the record that as a result of the report of the Third Pay commission, an Anomaly Committee was appointed by the Bihar government. The said Committee recommended that the Plant Protection Supervisors who were appointed prior to 1/1/1976 be given the pay scale of Rs. 296-460. There was some sort of concurrence by the Finance Department to the proposal made by the Anomaly Committee. The recommendation of the Anomaly Committee was, however, never officially accepted by the State government. But despite that the Department of Agriculture. government of Bihar conceded the claim of the appellants for grant of the pay scale of Rs. 296-460 with effect from l-l-1976 and they were given arrears of pay as lump sum in the year 1981. The state government, later on. realised that mere was no sanction tor the grant of the. higher pay scales, to the appellants and as such the government directedrecovery of the excess amount which was paid to the appellants. The appellants challenged the recovery order by way of three writ petitions before the Patna High court. Apart from challenging the recovery they also challenged the grant of two different pay scales in the cadre of Plant Protection Supervisors on the principle of "equal pay for equal work". The High court rejected the contentions and dismissed the writ petitions.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the higher pay scale having been granted to them by the State government on its own with the concurrence of the Finance Department, there was no justification whatsoever to have cancelled the same and ordered recovery from the appellants. He has further contended that no opportunity was afforded to them before passing the impugned order to their detriment. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High court. We agree with the high court that unless there was an order of the government sanctioning and granting revised pay scales to the appellants, they were not entitled to claim the same. But at the same time, we are of the view that the appellants cannot be blamed. The Anomaly Committee recommended grant of higher pay scales to them. The Finance Department also concurred with the same and as a result thereafter the appellants were given the pay scales and were disbursed the arrears as a lump sum. Having paid the arrears to the appellants, the State government could not have reversed the same specially without complying with the rules of natural justice. It is not disputed that no opportunity was afforded to the appellants before passing the order of recovery. We, therefore, grant limited relief to the appellants to the extent that we quash the order directing recovery of the amount paid to the appellants in the year 1981. The State government shall not effect recovery of the arrears in the revised pay scale for the period from 1/1/1976 to 1/1/1981. We. however, agree with the High court that the appellants were not entitled to the revised pay scale and as such we hold that it was rightly withdrawn from them.

(3.) We allow the appeal to the extent indicated above. No costs