RAVJIBHAI GAGJIBHAI BALONDRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Hina Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents through Video Conferencing. Perused the record.

(2.) In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ of mandamus and a direction to quash and set aside the orders dtd. 16/12/2015 and 30/12/2015 passed by the respondent authorities. By the order dated ,16/12/2015, an amount of Rs.77,611.00 has been recovered from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to the higher grade scale for a period from 20/9/1989 to 19/10/1994 on the ground that he had not passed the departmental examinations that were required to be passed for being entitled to the benefit of higher pay scale. The order of recovery was passed on 16/12/2016 and the petitioner was to retire on 31/3/2016. The amount was paid by the petitioner as he feared that if that was not done, his entire pensionary benefits would not be finalized. As a result of the order of 16/12/2015, the petitioner's request for opting of increment date of 1st September was rejected. The order of 30/12/2015 is a consequential order to that of 16/12/2015.

(3.) Ms. Hina Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk Typist in the year 1980. He joined service and cleared the departmental examination for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk on 19/3/1994 and that of the Senior Clerk on 20/10/1994. Since his date of appointment was 19/7/1980 as Clerk cum Typist, since the department did not conduct any departmental examination till the year 1994, the petitioner was granted the benefit of first higher grade pay scale from 20/9/1989 on his completing of 9 years. By the impugned orders, such benefit of grant of higher pay scale has been recovered after a period of more than 25 years. She would submit that in case of similarly situated employees, the recoveries were set aside and, therefore, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner who is a senior citizen.