Z.H. LAMAK Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, now aged about 75 years, has in this petition questioned the order dated 31.07.1996 by which an amount of Rs.1,04,989/ is directed to be recovered from her terminal/ retiral benefits.

(2.) Having heard Shri Haq, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 & 2, Shri Kaptan, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, we find that the basic facts are not in dispute. The petitioner joined services in 1963 as a Tutor in English and in 1977 that post was upgraded as Lecturer with effect from Academic Session 197576. In 1977 only she acquired additional qualification Diploma in Teaching in English Language and because of Government Resolution dated 25.10.1977, she was placed in the post of Lecturer.

(3.) The Government Resolution on revision of pay scales issued on 27.02.1989 shows a Scheme for Career Advancing in its clause 12 onwards. As per clause 12, every Lecturer is to be placed in senior scale of Rs.30005000 after he completes eight years of service after regular appointment. There are other conditions which are not relevant in present matter. Clause 13 then stipulates that such Lecturer who has put in eight years in senior scale become eligible to Selection Grade of Rs.37005700 after completing eight years of service in senior scale. Again, there are certain other compliances and those compliances are not required to be noted. Clause 15 also shows that a Lecturer is first entitled to senior scale and such Lecturer who has put in eight years of service in senior scale can be conferred Selection Grade. In facts before us, in 1999, the petitioner was placed in Selection Grade with effect from 01.01.1986. Thus, she was never placed in Senior Scale and was directly placed in next higher grade i.e. Selection Grade of Rs.37005700. It is continued till she reached the age of superannuation i.e. on 30.06.1995. The error was realised and hence by impugned order, recovery has been ordered. Who noted the error or then who authorized the recovery, is not decisive of the controversy.