SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Basic Trained Teacher in the year 1965. He was promoted to the post of Head Teacher in March, 2001. He was given the benefit of FR 22(1) (a) vide Annexure A-1. His pay was fixed at Rs.2410/-. However, vide letter dated 29.10.2001, the respondents came to conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to benefit of FR 22 (1) (a). The recoveries were directed to be effected from the salary of the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. V.D. Khidta, Advocate has strenuously argued that Annexure A-3 dated 29.10.2001 has been issued without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He then contended that the petitioner has been visited with severe civil and evil consequences. He lastly contended that his client has retired after attaining the age of superannuation during the pendency of this petition and it would be very harsh and oppressive if the recoveries are permitted to be effected from his salary.

(3.) Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the issuance of Annexure A-3. According to him, as per rules, he was not entitled to get the benefit of FR 22 (1) (a).