P LINGAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in brief are as follows :- THE petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-30-1500-EB-40-2040 in Cordite Factory Higher Secondary School. Previously the post of Lab Assistant in such organization was treated at par with the teachers of primary school and the pay scale was also same under the 3rd and 4th Central Pay Commission. 5th Central Pay Commission fixed the salary of the primary school teachers in the scale of Rs.4500-125-7000, which was accepted by the Central Government. On the basis of the above, the scale of pay of Lab Assistant in the Office of the third respondent was revised with effect from 1.1.1996 in the scale of Rs.4500-125-7000. Subsequently, however, a communication was received that Lab Assistant in Ordnance Factory Schools were eligible only for the replacement pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000. Consequently, there has been downward revision of pay as well as recovery of excess amount paid. THE petitioner filed O.A.No.516 of 2005. In such O.A., the Department took the stand that in 5th Central Pay Commission there was no recommendation for fixing the salary of Lab Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000 and as a matter of fact the scale of pay of Lab Assistant in Kendra Vidayalaya Schools has been fixed at Rs.4000-100-6000 and, therefore, the salary of such Lab Assistant in the primary schools of Ordnance Factories has to be fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-100-6000 and since there was excess payment, there was a direction for recovery.

(2.) THE Tribunal has concurred with the contention of the Department that Lab Assistants were not entitled to get the same scale of pay as primary school teachers and fixation of their scale of pay at Rs.4500-125-7000 cannot be justified. THE Tribunal further held that excess payment was required to be recovered. Such decision of the Tribunal dismissing the O.A. is in question, in the present writ petition.

(3.) HAVING regard to the limited scope of interference in such matters and having considered the reasoning's given by the Tribunal, we do not find any scope to interfere with such aspect. The main contention of the petitioner is therefore liable to be rejected.