MOHAN SINGH CHANDAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dt. 2.7.1986 (Annex.P.6) whereby petitioner was informed that his ·pay fixation shall be on the post of Lower Division Teacher. He further prays for quashing of his pay fixation from 10.9.1979 as Lower Division Teacher and consequent direction that the excess salary paid to the petitioner shall be recovered from his pay.

(2.) FACTS necessary for decision of the present writ petition are that by order dt. 7.9.1979, petitioner was appointed as an Upper Division Teacher with effect from 18.9.1979. Divisional Superintendent of Education, respondent No.3, by his Order dt. 15.10.1979 (Annex P.2) approved his appointment as such. Thereafter by order dt. 5.6.1984, petitioner was selected for B.Ed., training by respondent No.3. While granting aid by order dt. 18.3.1986, for the academic session 1985 -1986, the State Government has shown the name of the petitioner as Upper Division Teacher. Pay of the petitioner was fixed as Upper Division Teacher and he was paid salary as such. It was by the impugned order dt. 2.7.1986 (Annex.P.6) petitioner has been informed that as he does not possess Bachelor's Degree in Second class, his appointment as Upper Division Teacher, is disapproved and consequently his salary shall be fixed in the pay scale of Lower Division Teacher. Accordingly while fixing petitioner's pay as Lower Division Teacher (Annex.P.8) with effect from 10.9.1979, it was directed that excess salary paid to the petitioner as Upper Division Teacher shall be recovered from his pay.

(3.) MR . Ramesh Shrivastava appears on behalf of petitioner whereas respondents 1, 2 and 3 are represented by Shri S.N. Khare, Mr. Shrivastava raises a very short point and submits that the petitioner was offered salary in the higher scale of pay for about 7 years and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, pay fixation has been done as a Lower Division Teacher and the salary paid to the petitioner as Upper Division Teacher is also sought to be recovered by the impugned order. He submits that the aforesaid action, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is in the teeth of the principle of natural justice and on this ground alone, impugned orders are fit to be quashed.