VASANTBA G GOHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have invoked Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution to prevent recovery from their wages by virtue of the impugned orders. The facts of both the petitions being similar and common legal issue being involved, the petitions are heard together and disposed by this common judgement.

(2.) SHORT and simple relevant facts of the cases are that, petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in 1994 with express condition of clearing departmental examinations within two years. The appointments were purely temporary and appropriate actions under the Rules were required to be taken, if the petitioners failed to pass the necessary departmental examinations, as per the conditions of appointment. Admittedly, the petitioners have not passed or cleared the departmental examinations. Therefore, action was initiated as per Government Resolution dated 09. 09. 1977, under which the increments were compulsorily required to be withheld. However, since the increments were already erroneously released to the petitioners, the amounts paid in excess of their entitlement were required to be recovered.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Mr. K. R. Dave, appearing for the petitioners, vehemently argued that the increments were released after two years of service in the year 1996 and recovery of such alleged payment in excess cannot be effected in the year 2007. He submitted that the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of being heard and excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation by the petitioners. He further voiced the grievance that the departmental examinations were not held for as many occasions as were required under the Rules and therefore, the petitioners could not get sufficient chances to pass the examinations within the stipulated time. Mr. Dave relied upon judgement dated 29. 02. 2008 of this Court (Coram:a. S. Dave,j.) in R. P. Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat which relied upon decision of the Apex Court in P. H. Reddy Vs. NTRD [2002 (2) SLR 694]. Judgement dated 04. 04. 2001 of Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 578 of 2000 was also relied upon for the relevant observation as under: