BABU N J Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.B. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Deka, learned additional senior Government advocate for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. Muk Pertin, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. None appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) The petitioner challenges an order passed by the Chairperson, Arunachal Pradesh State Social Welfare Board, Naharlagun ('the State Board') whereby he has been directed to deposit the excess payment received by him in respect of pay and allowances prior to 14.1.2002 due to up-gradation of pay scale of Accountant post in the State of Arunachal Pradesh from Rs. 4500-7000 to Rs. 5000-8000 p.m. w.e.f 14.1.2002. There is a background in passing the said order. The material facts are to be stated for the purpose of adjudicating this matter as under:

(3.) Pursuant to the court's order, the State Board issued notice on 3.9.2005 to the- petitioner to which he filed a reply. The State Board, after due consideration, decided to retain the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 p.m. and a formal order was passed by the Chairperson of the State Board on 9.2.2006. So far so good. But a fresh trouble started when an internal audit team from the Directorate of Audit and Accounts, during 25.2.2008 to 29.2.2008, visited and inspected the accounts of the State Board for the period from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2007 and recorded an adverse note on the action of the State Board in seeking ex-post-facto approval from the State Government. This necessitated issuance of O.M. dated 11.10.2007 by the Chairperson of the State Board whereby all theorders including the operation' of the aforesaid order dated 9.2.2006 was kept in abeyance providing that the petitioner would be liable to refund the excess drawal of money right from the date of pay fixation in erroneous pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 p.m. The said order was passed on the ground that the petitioner was placed in the scale of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 without concurrence of the State Government and the approval of the Central Board was irregular and beyond the jurisdiction of the State Board for which the State Board was asked to obtain ex-post-facto approval of the State Government to regularise the issue. The Central Board also vide letter dated 26.7.2008, requested the Secretary of the State Board to obtain the ex-post-facto approval from the State Government.