SOPANRAO PAWAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner ventilating his grievance that an amount of Rs.1,20,291/- has been recovered from his GPF and other retiral dues allegedly on account of erroneous fixation of his pay. It is contended that petitioner was rightly given the benefit of posting in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- which was subsequently upgraded in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 + 2400 grade pay. It is contended that since the petitioner was promoted on the post of Head Clerk by an Order dated 28.02.98, the aforesaid pay scales were given to him. Infact, the petitioner should have been given the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- and consequential revised pay scale in the higher pay scale, but that was not done. Some sort of objection was taken by the Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts on the basis of which the salary of the petitioner has been reducedand the alleged recovery aforesaid has been made from his retiral dues. It is contended that the order impugned issued in this respect was never communicated to him nor any opportunity of hearing was given and as such the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

(2.) Relief is claimed to the effect that respondents be commanded to refund back the aforesaid amount with interest.

(3.) Refuting the allegations made in the writ petition, the respondents have filed their return. It is categorically contended by the respondents that though an order of promotion was issued in respect of petitioner on 24.2.98, but in the order itself specific condition was prescribed that those who have not obtained the accounts training were not to be relieved to join on the post. It is contended that the statutory rules prescribe an eligibility condition of passing of accounts training and the same has been made an essential condition for such Upper Division Clerks who are to be promoted on the post of Head Clerks. It is contended that since erroneously the then Principal of school instead of verifying the fact whether petitioner has obtained the accounts training or not, relieved the petitioner to join on the promotional post and revised the salary of petitioner on higher pay scale, erroneous payment of salary was made to the petitioner. When at the time of retirement, the salary statement of petitioner was considered, it was found that in terms of the statutory provisions of the rules as also in terms of the recommendation made by Singh Deo Committee, the petitioner was entitled to a lesser pay scale and accordingly when the salary was revised, it was found that the petitioner was paid aforesaid amount in excess to his entitlement. The said amount has been recovered only from the gratuity payable to the petitioner and not a single penny has been recovered from the GPF of the petitioner. It is contended that the GPF amount was already withdrawn by the petitioner and this being so, nothing was to be paid to the petitioner towards the GPF. It is contended that in view of the latest law laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition is liable to be dismissed.