HOSHIAR SINGH Vs. H.S.E.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has prayed for quashing orders Annexure PB dated 1.1.1994, PC dated 25.8.1993 and PF dated 12.9.1995 whereby a sum of Rs. 34,790/ - has been ordered to be recovered from the applicant, his pay has been fixed and the representation {as the original application filed by the applicant was treated) has been rejected and to direct the respondents to refund recoverable amount of Rs. 34,790 to him with interest at the Bank rate.

(2.) The case of the applicant in brief is that he was working as a Foreman Special with the respondents and retired on 30.11.1993. His services were regularised on 3.10.1980 and he was given work charged status and as such he was entitled to the same scale of pay as regular employees vide Annexure PA. When the applicant retired the respondents recovered a sum of Rs. 34,790/ - from his retiral gratuity on the ground that his pay was wrongly fixed which led to over payment to him. As this decision to recover the said amount has been taken and recovery has been affected without giving opportunity of being heard to the applicant, therefore, it is violative of the principle of natural justice. It is further claimed that the recovery has been effected from the applicant on the premise that scale of Rs. 800 -1400/ - was wrongly given to him from1980 whereas it should have been from 1987 which stand is wrong, illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice whereas the applicant in fact was entitled to this scale from 1.1.1978 being qualified and eligible to the same. The applicant served notice Annexure PD on the respondents but of no avail. Therefore, he had to file O.A. (M) 204/1995 which was ordered to be treated as representation to the Secretary, HPSEB who was to consider and dispose of such representation within two months and liberty was reserved to the applicant to approach the Tribunal again on the same cause of action. The said representation of the applicant had been rejected by the respondents illegally and unconstitutionally and further directions that the excess payment due to wrong fixation is required to be recovered from DCRG vide Annexure PF is also wrong and illegal and liable to be quashed, hence this original application.

(3.) The respondents contested the claim of the applicant and filed reply. It has been averred in the reply that after due and careful consideration the claim of the applicant was found devoid of merits and it was rejected by the competent authority, therefore, the original application is not maintainable; that the applicant in fact was promoted as Foreman special on and w.e.f. 11.2.1987 and was then granted the scale of Rs. 800 -1400 vide order dated 17.11.1987 vide Annexure RA/1, therefore, his pay fixation W.e.f. 1.1.1978 was made wrongly/erroneously as he was entitled to such pay scale only w.e.f. 11.2.1987. The mistake was pointed out by the audit therefore, a sum of Rs. 34,790/ - was deducted from the DCRG of the applicant and the action of the respondents is just, proper and bona fide and requires no interference.