PB PATEL Vs. GUJARAT SAHITYA ACADEMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, waives the service of Rule. In view of the peculiar facts and special circumstances and upon consensus, this Letters Patent Appeal is taken up for Final Hearing, today itself.

(2.) The challenge is against the order, of learned Single Judge, dated 4-2-2003 in Special Civil Application No. 2891 of 2002 whereby the petition of the appellants for restraining the respondent No.1 from recovering the arrears of overpayment made to the original-petitioners on account of revision of pay-scales, came to be rejected mainly on the ground that the original-petitioners belong to and are the employees of Gujarat Sahitya Academy, which is not a department of the Government but, a Registered Society and therefore was not competent to fix the pay-scales pursuant to "The Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1998, ["ROP Rules 1998"] and therefore the revised salary paid to the employees of the respondent No.1 Gujarat Sahitya Academy is not as per the Rules and should be recovered and also on the ground that there was an undertaking.

(3.) The only question, which comes to the focus, in this Letters Patent Appeal, is circumscribed to recovery of arrears paid to the original-petitioners, appellants before us, on account of revision of pay-scales. The order of the Government, directing the Academy for recovery, and resultant order of recovery, from the employees-petitioners were sought to be challenged, but unsuccessfully, before the learned Single Judge. It is in this context, it has been submitted by learned advocate, Mr. Upadhyay for the appellants, original-petitioners, that the payment of arrears has already been made, and in view of the provisions of Rule 57A of BCS Rules, recovery cannot be effected. It is also submitted that otherwise also after such a long time the payment made to the appellants cannot be recovered as there is no allegation of any overt act attributable to the appellants. Both these reasons, for restraining the recovery, are again questioned and challenged by the learned Assistant Government Pleader.