HIRDAYA NAND TIWARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dtd. 7/5/2010 contained in letter no. 734 (Annexure-2) by which the scale of pay of the petitioner has been modified from Rs.4000.006000 to Rs.3050.004590 and has directed that the excess payment will be recovered from the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed on the post of Fuse man on 12/5/1970, later on, he was promoted to the post of Armature Winder on 15/12/1977 and after creation of tubewell project, the service of the petitioner was taken over under the tubewell project on the post of Electrician in 1988. During the period of 1/1/1986 to 1/1/1996, he was getting pay scale of Rs.1200.001800 and after recommendation of Pay Revision Commission Report, a Resolution no. 660 dtd. 25/2/1990 was issued, thereby the scale of pay of the employees of State was revised and also of the Electrician, on that basis, the scale of pay of the petitioner was revised in the pay scale of Rs.4000.006000, accordingly, after fitment in the pay scale, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.5900.00. It has been found, the wrong pay scale of Electrician was given to petitioner, the respondent-department vide letter no.734 dtd. 07/05/2010 (Annexure 2) rectified the pay scale of Rs.3050.004590 thereby the petitioner has been down graded in the pay scale of Rs.3050.004590 and accordingly the fitment has been made, further mentioned the excess payment would be recovered from petitioner and ultimately vide memo no. 1993 dtd. 30/12/2010 (Annexure-3), the recovery of Rs.1,80,000.00 has been made from the retiral dues of the petitioner which is under challenge in the present case. It has been submitted that he was granted promotion in the pay scale of Rs.4000.006000 and the decision was wrongly taken by the State to grant the pay scale of Rs.3050.004590 and follow of action of recovery is bad in law and that too after superannuation from service and he has placed reliance on two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 2014 (4) PLJR 36 [SC] (State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih [White Washer]) and 2015 (1) PLJR 261 [SC] (State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set out the guideline with respect to recovery of the amount on the plea of wrong fixation and excess payment and in paragraph 12 of the said judgment the Court has given the guideline which is as follow:-