LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-125

CHANDRASINH RELIBHAI CHAUDHARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On August 04, 2020
Chandrasinh Relibhai Chaudhari Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside the orders dated 16.02.2015 and 03.07.2017. By the aforesaid orders, the respondent no. 1 - State Of Gujarat has directed the respondent no. 2 i.e. Veer Narmad South Gujarat University to recover the amount of salaries earned for a period of two years from the petitioner. In turn, the respondent no. 2 by the order dated 03.07.2017 has directed recovery of Rs.12,26,274/- towards the amount of salary for a period of two years.

(2.) The facts in brief are as under:

(3.) Mr. Nilesh Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the orders are bad. The petitioner was admittedly appointed prior to 01.10.1984, as he was appointed as a Junior Clerk-cum-Typist on 18.05.1982. Accordingly therefore as per the resolution of 1989 since his appointment was prior to 01.10.1984, his age of superannuation was 60 years and not 58 years. He submitted that for no fault of the petitioner, he was continued in service for a period of two years, he served with the department and therefore recovery of the amount of Rs. 12 lakhs towards salaries is illegal. He further submitted that the petitioner completed 32 years of actual service, pension papers were sent for sanction and it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner continued work on any misrepresentation of facts made by the petitioner and therefore the order of recovery and resultant withholding of pension was illegal. He submitted that the resolution dated 26.09.1989 was wrongly interpreted by the respondents. He further submitted that parity ought to be given to the petitioner as one Bhaskar Chhotalal Solanki and one Prakash Natwarlal Bardoliya who were appointed as Junior Stenographers after 1984 i.e. in 1988 were continued in service till they attained the age of 60 and no orders of recovery have been passed. Mr. Shah would therefore submit that the orders be quashed and set aside.