KURUPNETH KESHWAN RAVINDRAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the order dated 15-3-2004 (Annexure P-1) by which fixation of his pay was done with retrospective effect on lower pay scale, the order dated 23-12-2004 by which recovery of Rs. 68,257/- has been ordered, the objections raised by the Treasury Department of the respondents on 30-12-2002 (Annexure P-15A) about wrong fixation of pay and recovery of excess payment was directed, similar objection of the Treasury Department raised on 27-1-2005 (Annexure P-16), the order dated 22-2-2005 (Annexure P-17) reducing his pay from Rs. 4500-7000/- to Rs. 4000-6000/- and last pay from Rs. 7000 to Rs. 6750/- and by the recovery order (Annexure P-l 8) by which recovery of Rs. 34,901/- is ordered from his retiral benefits, the petitioner has approached this Court through this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the petitioner was appointed on 28-11-1964 on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Panchayat and Social Justice Department of the Government of M. P. and on his attaining the age of superannuation he has been retired from service w.e.f. 31-5-2005 from the post of Divisional Head Clerk/Assistant Grade-1. The case of the petitioner is that after his appointment on the post of L.D.C., he was promoted vide order dated 7-7-1980 to the post of U.D.C., and thereafter he was further promoted to the post of Accountant vide order dated 1-10-1982 (Annexure P-3) in the pay scale of Rs. 205-375/-. The pay scale of the post of Accountant was revised to Rs. 635-950/- w.e.f. 1-4-1981 under M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 (Annexure P-4). It was further revised to Rs. 1200-1800/- w.e.f. 1-1-1986 (Annexure P-5) and on the basis of the order dated 14-10-1987 (Annexure P-5) by the Finance Department the said pay scale was modified/amended to Rs. 1200-1840/-w.e.f. 1-4-1987.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner that in view of the law laid down by this Court by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M. P. vs. Dayaram Patidar, Writ Petition No. 1104/01 decided on 4-10-2002 he was rightly extended the benefit of FR 22-D, since on his promotion to the post of Head Clerk-cum-Accountant his pay scale on promotion was the same as that of the lower post which he was holding, therefore, rightly, applying the ratio of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M. P. vs. Dayaram Patidar (supra) he was extended the benefit of FR 22-D. According to him the benefit of FR 22-D which was already extended in his favour could not have been revoked and the recovery as has been ordered could not have been ordered at the time of settlement of his retiral dues that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. He submits that the impugned orders are violative of principles of natural justice as also the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State ofM. P. vs. Dayaram Patidar (supra). It is also the case of the petitioner that since he was promoted to the post of Divisional Head Clerk which was the post equivalent to the post of Assistant Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- his pay could not have been reduced with retrospective effect and his last pay drawn could not have been reduced to Rs. 6750/- in place of Rs. 7000/-. He also contended that the benefit of FR 22-D and the pay scale was given to him not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on his part and as such the impugned recovery at the time of his retirement is violative of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sahibram vs. State of Haryana, 1994(2)SCC 52 and also in case of Shyambabu Verma vs. Union of India, 1994(2)SCC 521. He, therefore, prayed that the entire action of the respondents including the impugned orders and recoveries, the impugned Treasury objections be quashed.