SHRI TANKESWAR KALITA Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G. Uddin, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents 1,2,3 & 5 are represented by Mr. J. Handique, the learned Government Advocate. The learned Counsel Mr. R.K. Talukdar appears for the Accountant General (A&E), Assam (respondent No.4).

(2.) The petitioner started service as an Extension Officer (Tech) on 8.5.1983 in the Industries and Commerce Department and was posted at the Chenga Development Block, under the Project Director, DRDA, Barpeta (respondent No. 5). The Pay Scale of Extension Officer was Rs.620-25-745-EB-30-895-EB-35-1313 and therefore at the entry point, the Extension Officer's pay should have been fixed at Rs.620.00 P.M. with Date of Next Increment (DNI) on 1.5.1984. Subsequently when Pay Scale was revised under the ROP Rules 1990, the petitioner's pay should have been fixed at Rs.1785.00 with the next increment due on 1.5.1989 in the Pay Scale of Rs. 1375-30-1435-40-1635-50-1885-EB-50- 2035-60-2395-80-2875-100-3375. But instead it was fixed at a higher level at Rs.1885.00. During the next Pay Revision under the ROP Rules, 1998, the petitioner was entitled to the scale of Rs.3580-90-4480-120-4720-EB-120-5200-175-6600-250-8100-325-8750 and at that stage his Pay should have been fixed at Rs.5375.00 instead of Rs.5900.00 with Date of Next Increment on 1.5.1996. But through the mistaken fitment in the wrong slab, the petitioner was paid higher wages and after the mistake was detected, it is directed to be rectified through the letter dated 4.12.2007 (Annexure-5), issued by the Accountant General (A&E).

(3.) While the employee accepts that excess salary was paid, on the issue of recovery, he however contends that overdrawal should not be allowed to be recovered after so many years since the petitioner himself pointed out on 6.7.1985 (Page-14) to the Project Director, Barpeta that he was paid higher salary and requested for taking rectificatory steps. Therefore Mr. G. Uddin, the learned Counsel submits that as the departmental authorities failed to take corrective measures despite being cautioned by the petitioner himself, the overdrawal because of the departmental mistake, should not be allowed to be recovered from the employee, as he had no role in the matter.