KULWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 12321 of 1989 and 16551 of 1992 as the issue raised in both the petitions is common. The facts for the purposes of this order are being taken from CWP No. 12321 of 1989. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner prays for quashing para 7 of the Audit and Inspection note on the accounts of Block Primary Education Officer, Mahilpur from 12/85 to 12/87(P.4) and decision of the respondents to re-fix the salary of the petitioner which was on revision of pay scale on 16.7.1975 and on 8.1.1978.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as JBT teacher in the Education Department on 1.12.1961. The petitioner was granted the pay scale of Rs. 125-300 w.e.f. 1.11.1966 on account of the recommendations of the Kothari Commission by the Punjab Government. Punjab Government further decided to revise the pay scale of Masters and JBT Teachers w.e.f. 16.7.1975. The respondent- Director Public Instructions vide letter dated 27.7.1982 (P.2) instructed all the District Education Officers to fix the pay scales of all JBT Teachers w.e.f. 16.7.1975 from 125-5-250/10-300 to Rs. 150-7-0234/8-250-10/300 . As the petitioner was drawing pay of Rs. 190/- on 16.7.1975 his pay was fixed at Rs. 192/- p.m. with effect from 1.1.1978. The Punjab Government again revised the pay scale of JBT teachers from 150-300 to Rs. 440-880 and the pay of the petitioner was accordingly fixed at Rs. 585/- w.e.f. 8.2.1978. The Audit Party raised an objection (P.4) to the fixation of salary of the petitioner as on 16.7.1975 and on 8.2.1978. It desired to fix the salary of the petitioner according to the new fixation formula. The Audit Party also worked out overpayment of Rs. 7260.53P. on account of excess payment. The Audit Party further desired that amount of DA and ADA paid to the petitioner may also be worked out and recovered under intimation to the Auditors. It has been averred in the petition that mere raising of an objection by the Audit Party is not sufficient to reduce the salary of the petitioner and to order recovery. The petitioner had a right to be heard before the implementation of the order. It is alleged that the respondents have sought to enforce the observations of the Audit Party without complying with the principles of natural justice.

(3.) I have heard the learned State Counsel and have perused the paper book.