S B PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution for the relief of setting aside order and communication by which amounts paid towards increments were sought to be recovered. There is no dispute about the facts that the petitioner entered the service of the respondents on 1. 3. 1976 and earned increments without fulfilling the conditions of passing departmental examination within three years as required by Notification dated 19th July 1974 of the Agriculture, Forests and Cooperation Department of the State Government. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been making representations to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest pointing out that he was not aware about the process of departmental examinations, as he was recruited as a clerk in the collectorate and sent to the Forest Department, after he was declared as surplus. That, however, cannot be a ground to by-pass or obliterate the Rules, which are very clear in their import and Rule 4 of the Gujarat Forest Department (Conditions of Service Relating to Junior Clerk's (Examination) Rules, 1971 clearly stipulated as under:

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner was granted increments since the year 1976 without passing the examination till the year 1999, and hence, the impugned order dated 18. 1. 2000 was issued to declare and clarify that the increments earned by the petitioner for the period from 1. 12. 1979 till 1. 12. 1995 were treated as notional. Apparently, actual increment could have been granted only after the petitioner cleared the examination and the amounts, which were wrongly paid to the petitioner in the previous period was required to be recovered. As a last effort, learned counsel Mr. Nanavati submitted that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing before the order to recover the amounts already paid was made. However, sufficient opportunity was given by this Court to explain as to why recovery could not be effected on account of untimely release of increments, which was in violation of the Rules and no ground having been made out to take a different view of the matter, the petition is not required to be entertained only on the ground of alleged violation of principles of natural justice. Under such circumstances, there is no substance in the petition and no justification in granting the relief as prayed in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, Rule is discharged and ad-interim relief, which was granted and ordered to continue is vacated.