ROOP KRISHEN ZAROO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts which have given rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondent No.2 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Draftsman Grade IV applied, he was considered and eventually appointed as Draftsman Grade IV against a permanent available vacancy in the pay scale of Rs.550 -750 vide order No. 544/1/Q dated 23/02/1975. He functioned on the post to the satisfaction of his superiors, was declared quasi permanent and was confirmed against the post from 1975 which is the year of his first appointment. He has been working in the pay scale of Rs. 550 -750(revised subsequently) and the entries to this effect were recorded in his service Book.

(2.) IN the year 1981 an order bearing No. 544/EMP/CIVS/24 dated 12/09/1981 was issued through which the petitioner was placed in the lower pay scale of Rs.360 -560. This order was assailed by the petitioner before this court vide writ petition No. 348 of 1981. The writ petition was allowed and the order was set aside. However, it was left open to the respondents to deal with the matter inaccordance with the rules and principles of natural justice and subsequent to the order of the court, a notice was issued to the petitioner bearing No. 544/EMP/PKZ/ CIVS/138. The said show cause notice was replied by the petitioner, a copy of the reply is appended with the writ petition and a fresh order has been passed by the respondent vide No. 544/RKZ/CIVS/X dated 01/06/1987 which has the effect of reducing petitioners pay scale from Rs.550 -750 to Rs.330 -560 retrospectively from 24/02/1975. It also requires the petitioner to refund an amount of Rs.81,351.50, the petitioner being aggrieved of the said order, therefore this writ petition.

(3.) THE respondents have filed a counter and crux of the averments made in the counter is that a mistake has crept in the order of appointment of the petitioner in respect of the pay scale which was entered in his service book as well and the petitioner continued to draw his pay on the basis of such mistakes, he was also declared quasi permanent and confirmed as well and the mistake was detected which has been rectified through the order impugned, accordingly asked to refund the excess pay and allowances drawn by him from 24/02/1975 till 01/06/1987. On these grounds the respondents have challenged the maintainability of the writ petition.