BISHAN CHAND Vs. REGISTRAR CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with the Jagraon Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Jagraon. He was appointed as such vide order dated April 15, 1991. A copy of this order is at Annexure P.1. This post was in the scale of Rs. 800-40-1200/50-1400/60-1700. The petitioner was granted a basic pay of Rs. 1300/- in this scale.

(2.) The pay scale of Rs. 800-1700 was revised to Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. April 1, 1991. His pay in the revised scale was fixed at Rs. 2,700/-. Actually, the pay should have been fixed at Rs. 2,580/-. Consequently, the respondent passed an order dated February 5, 1996 regarding the refixation of the petitioner's salary. A copy of this order is at Annexure P.9 with the writ petition. The petitioner submitted a representation. He complained that the order had been passed without giving him any opportunity. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to defend his case. Ultimately, vide order dated July, 18, 1996, the petitioner's contention was rejected. Hence this petition. The petitioner prays that the impugned action in refixing his pay and ordering recovery of the excess amount paid to him be quashed.

(3.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim. It has been inter alia averred that the respondent is only a Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. It is not even an instrumentality of the State. It is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Reference in support of this contention has been made to not only the decisions of this Court but also to the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 622 of 1975 (K.L. Chadda v. State of Punjab etc.) decided on February 7, 1990. On merits, it has been pointed out that according to the instructions issued by the State Government vide letter dated September 9, 1988, a benefit of 10% increase in pay was admissible to the employees who had been appointed to the service prior to the revision of pay scales. However, since the petitioner had joined the service after the revision of pay scales w.e.f April 1, 1991, this benefit was not admissible to him. It had been wrongly granted. On noticing the mistake, the error was rectified. The excess amount paid to the petitioner has been ordered to be recovered in instalments. The allegation that the order is violative of the principles of natural justice has been denied. It has been pointed out that a notice dated June 3, 1996 had been given to the petitioner. He was given personal hearing and thereafter the impugned order dated July 18, 1996, a copy of which is at Annexure P.11 with the writ petition, was passed. The respondent maintains that the action is legal and valid.