VED RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATERIAL facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Language Teacher in the respondent- department with effect from 29.9.1964. His pay was fixed w.e.f. 1.1.1986 at ' 2000/- in the pre-revised pay scale with next date of increment as 1.1.1987 by the District Education Officer, Mandi. However, vide letter dated 19.8.2000, respondent-department had decided to revise the pay fixation of the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1986 to ' 1800/- per month. Petitioner was also apprised of the mode of recovery vide Annexure A-1, dated 10.9.2001.

(2.) MR. T.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client has not been heard before the issue of letter dated 19th August, 2000 and Annexure A-1, dated 10.9.2001. This position is not disputed by the learned Deputy Advocate General, rather in the reply also, it is not averred that the petitioner was ever afforded opportunity of being heard.

(3.) THEIR Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others versus State of Bihar and others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 have culled out the following principles governing the circumstances in which the excess amount cannot be recovered by the employer: