SHAM LAL GOEL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein competed for the post of Agriculture Sub-Inspector. He was selected. Vide order dated Oct. 30, 1973, the petitioner was appointed as a Stipendary Agriculture Sub-Inspector in the Department of Agriculture. On the work regarding land reclamation having been transferred to Haryana Land Reclamation and Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), the petitioner was transferred as Agriculture Sub-Inspector to the Corporation. This post carried the pay scale of Rs. 110-200. While working as such he was promoted as Store Keeper vide orders dated April 10, 1978. The post of Store Keeper was in the pay scale of Rs. 140-300. During the course of his service, it appears that the petitioner along with certain other persons represented to the Department of Agriculture that he having been selected by the Board for appointment in the office of Director, Agriculture, Haryana should be absorbed in the Department of Agriculture and not posted in the Corporation. The matter, it appears, was considered and vide order dated Nov. 26, 1981, the Director of Agriculture decided that "in view of the fact that the concerned Agriculture Inspectors were recruited specifically for appointment in the Department of Agriculture Haryana and not for Haryana Land Reclamation & Development Corporation, since a number of vacancies exist in the Department and they are experienced hands, their claims are hereby admitted subject to the condition that these orders will take effect retrospectively and no arrears of pay or deputation allowance be paid to them. Their seniority will also be fixed according to the recommendation of the Subordinate Service Selection Board in due course. "A copy of this order has been placed as Annexure R. 2 with the written statement. In pursuance to this order, the Director of Agriculture, issued an order dated Aug. 19, 1983 for the recall of the petitioner from the Corporation and for his adjustment under the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Hissar, against a vacant post. A copy of this order has been placed on record as Annexure R. 4 with the written statement.

(2.) On his repatriation to the Department of Agriculture, the petitioner continued to draw his salary which he was drawing in the Corporation as a Store Keeper. This post originally carried the pay scale of Rs. 140-300, which was later on revised to Rs. 400-600, w.e.f. April 1, 1979. Accordingly the petitioner continued to draw his salary in the pay scale of Rs. 400-600. He was even allowed to cross efficiency bar in this scale. It appears that in the year 1986, it was noticed that the petitioner had been appointed as a Sub-Inspector in the pay scale of Rs. 110-200. He having been appointed in the Department of Agriculture his pay in the scale of Rs. 400-600 had to be refixed on the hypothesis that he had continued to work as Sub-Inspector and not on the basis of his Store Keeper in the scale of Rs. 140-300.00. Accordingly, an order dated Oct. 21, 1986, fixing the petitioner's pay was issued. Since this order had been passed without the grant of any opportunity to the petitioner, he challenged the same by way of filing C.W.P. No. 1441 of 1986. The writ petition was disposed of with an order that the petitioner's claim be decided after giving him an opportunity of hearing. The order dated Oct. 21, 1986 was quashed. The culminated in the order dated Oct. 3, 1988, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) A perusal of this order shows that on the petitioner's reversion in the year 1983, his pay was fixed at Rs. 480.00 per month in the scale of Rs. 400-600 w.e.f. April 1, 1979 and at Rs. 490.00 p.m. w.e.f. April 2, 1979 with next date of increment as April 1, 1980. This was done on the basis of the pay the petitioner was drawing as Store Keeper in the Corporation. It was in this situation, that he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar. The matter came to the notice of the department when the Audit Party raised an objection. After consideration of the matter, it has been found that the petitioner's pay had to be fixed as Inspector and no as Store Keeper. Accordingly, he was found entitled to a pay of Rs. 430.00 w.e.f. April 1, 1979. His pay has been fixed accordingly. He has been granted an annual increment w.e.f. April 2, 1979, thus raising his pay to Rs. 440.00 with April 1, 1980 as the next date of increment. The excess amount paid to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of his pay has been ordered to be recovered ⅓rd of his pay per month.