CHET RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure P -4 office order dated 7.8.2006 reducing and re -fixing the pay of petitioner which was earlier step -up.

(2.) The further case of the petitioner is that he has been working as Assistant Consolidation Officer with respondents. He was granted step -up in pay w.e.f. 2.4.1996 vide order dated 5.9.1997 Annexure P -1 and accordingly the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 2270/ - as on 2.4.1996 instead of Rs. 2060. The respondents vide notice dated 28.6.2006 Annexure P -2 after giving reference of letter dated 6.2.2006 and Finance Department Office Memo dated 21.9.1999 informed the petitioner that the step -up of pay given to him has to be taken back. The petitioner was directed to file reply. The petitioner filed the reply annexure P -3 to the notice and submitted that the step -up of pay was rightly granted to the petitioner inasmuch as one Inder Ram has joined as Assistant Consolidation Officer on 26.5.1996 whereas the petitioner had joined as Assistant Consolidation Officer on 26.5.1994. The petitioner had also submitted that the step -up was granted by the respondents at their own without any misrepresentation on the side of the petitioner. The respondents without considering the reply of the petitioner vide order dated 7.8.2006 has ordered and taken back the step -up of pay granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 2.4.1996. The respondents have re -fixed the pay of the petitioner. The order dated 7.8.2006 has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the step -up of pay was granted to the petitioner on the analogy of Inder Ram who was getting the same pay. The respondents remained silent for more than 10 years and has ordered the recovery of step -up granted to the petitioner. It has been alleged that the order dated 7.8.2006 is illegal, arbitrary and is result of non -application of mind.

(3.) The respondents have contested the petition by filing reply. It has been submitted that the step -up of pay was given to the petitioner inadvertently for which he was not eligible as the petitioner was junior to Inder Ram, Assistant Consolidation Officer on the post of Patwari and Kanungo. Lateron it came to the notice of the office from the perusal of Finance Department letter dated 7.3.1991 and another letter dated 21.9.1999 and the Government of Indias order No.23 of the Fundamental Rule 22 that the petitioner was not entitled for step -up. As a result of which, the step -up wrongly given to the petitioner was withdrawn after notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has received overpayment from the Government exchequer, therefore, it is necessary to recover the over -payment from the petitioner. There is no illegality and arbitrariness in the order dated 7.8.2006. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition.