NARANBHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Pandya for the petitioner; Ms. Raval, learned AGP for the respondent authorities, Mr. Sunil K. Shah, learned advocate for respondent no.1. Notice of rule issued by this court has been served upon the respondent no.2 but the respondent no.2 has not remained present before this court either in person or through any advocate.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a social worker following a public advertisement dated 15.5.1965. Thereafter, the petitioner remained on the post of BEE and DEE upto 21st October, 1992 continuously. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted on the post of TDO and was posted as Instructor and ultimately, lastly, the petitioner worked with the District Panchayat, Ahmedabad on the post of Chitnis from 27th August, 1996 to 31st January, 1998 when he retired from service by reaching the age of superannuation. Earlier, the petitioner had filed special civil application no. 6558 of 1985 with another petitioner RJ Gandhi against the respondents wherein the question was raised to the effect that whether the fixation of a lower grade for persons belonging to the cadre of social workers and other cadres but not holding post graduate degree is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India when a higher grade is fixed for persons belonging to the same cadre or cadres but holding post graduate degree. The said petition was decided by this court (Coram : SK Keshote,J.) by judgment and order dated 3.12.1997. As per the observations made by this court in para 13 of the said judgment, this court has not find any merits in the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that two different pay scales could not have been prescribed only on the ground of qualification. So far as the second grievance of the petitioners in the said petition regarding recovery of the excess amount paid to them was concerned, it has been observed by this court that the period has to be divided into two parts; first part is the period during which the petitioners have drawn the pay in the pay scale of Rs.550-900 till June, 1981 and the second part subsequent to June, 1981. The Government has, on or about 30th June, 1981, taken a positive view that those social workers and the extension educators who did not hold the post graduate degree and who are appointed prior to 1.6.1967 shall be given the revised grade of Rs.425-700 and not the grade of Rs.550-900 and the amount of salary drawn by them on the basis of grade of Rs.550-900 in excess of the amount of salary which they could have drawn on the basis of Rs.425-700 shall be recovered from them. Thus, as per the observations made by this court in the said judgment, that the recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioners for the period prior to 30th June, 1981 may be of the erroneous act of the respondents but the petitioners also cannot be blameworthy of the same. The petitioners have not snatched away something from the pocket of the respondents but as the matter remains to be in dilemma whether they are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.550-900 or Rs.425-700, they were given the pay scale of Rs.550-900 for all the time to come till the order of the Government passed on or about 30th June, 1981 came into light. In this regard, it has been observed by this court in the said judgment as under:

(3.) Thus, the observations made by this court referred to the above namely ' However, in case after 30th June 1981 they have been paid the pay in the pay scale of Rs.550-900 then certainly the recovery could have been ordered' has given handle to the respondents to recover the amount from the petitioners. In light of the said observations made by this court, the respondents have passed order dated 4.9.1999 annexure-A wherein notice has been issued to the petitioner to pay the total amount of Rs. 1,26,190.20 ps. to the respondents towards the difference of the scale of Rs.550-900, subsequently revised in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 from July, 1981. Second order has been passed by the respondent no.2 to recover Rs.26,572.00 from the retirement benefit of the petitioner and the said amount has already been recovered by respondent no.2 from the retirement benefits of the petitioner and the same has been remitted to the first respondent. These two orders as well as the action of withholding 10 per cent of the amount of provident fund is under challenge in this petition.