HARBANS SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is essentially for issuance of direction to respondents to step up the pay of the petitioner so as to bring it at par with his junior Smt. Vimika Sharma, Teacher w.e.f. 11/6/2009 with all consequential benefits including re-fixation of his pension. The facts in brief leading to filing of this petition as narrated by the petitioner are that the petitioner, a graduate laboratory bearer in the Department of School Education came to be promoted as Teacher on 11/6/2009. He retired on superannuation on 30/9/2013. The pension papers were submitted by the School Education Department to the Accountant General, J &K for settlement of retirement pension of the petitioner. The Accountant General, the respondent No.5 herein while scrutinizing the pension papers of the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner had drawn excess pay w.e.f. 11/6/2009 to 30/9/2013, i.e. up to the date of his retirement. It was pointed out by the respondent No.5 that on promotion of the petitioner to the post of Teacher, his salary was wrongly fixed. The petitioner, as pointed out by the respondent No.5, was entitled to salary of Rs. 10,460.00 (i.e. Rs. 7660+2800) in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs. 2800.00 but the department had fixed his salary as Rs. 10,490.00 (i.e. Rs. 7690+2800). The error in fixation of salary of the petitioner, as pointed out by the respondent No.5, was communicated to the respondent No.4 in terms of respondent No.5's letter No.PNR/III/C-2/13-14/1105-06 dtd. 24/12/2013. In response to the communication of respondent No.5, the department of the petitioner corrected the error, re-fixed the pay of the petitioner and intimated to the respondent No.5 to recover an amount of Rs. 48,249.00 on account of excess drawal of pay and allowances w.e.f. 1/7/2009 to 30/9/2013. This order was acted upon to the knowledge of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner claims that he immediately made a representation to the respondent No.4 on 7/3/2014 claiming stepping up of his salary equivalent to the pay of Smt. Vimika Sharma, a Teacher junior to him. The petitioner also disputed the re-fixation of his salary by the respondent No.4 at the instance of the respondent No.5. On the request of petitioner, it appears that case of the petitioner for stepping up was taken up by the respondent No.4 with the respondent No.3, as is evident from the communication of the respondent No.4 issued vide his No. ZEOM/1528 dtd. 10/3/2014. The respondent No.3 in turn recommended the case of the petitioner to the respondent No.2 vide his communication No. CEOK/17519 dtd. 20/10/2014. The petitioner further submits that he had also represented his case for cash in lieu of leave, which too came to be forwarded by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.3 vide his communication No. ZEOM/1310 dtd. 27/3/2017. The respondent No.3, however, did not take any decision on that case as well. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that his case for stepping up in terms of Article 77-B of the J &K CSR has been accepted in principle by all the officers in the hierarchy and was sent to the Administrative Department on 28/11/2014, the same has not been considered by the respondent No.1. The petitioner also draws support from the Circular of the Department of School Education issued vide No. Edu/Acctts/Step-up/Circular/2009/542 dtd. 4/3/2009.

(3.) The respondents have contested the petition of the petitioner and have filed their reply affidavits. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, i.e. by the School Education Department, the contention of the petitioner that after his retirement he represented for stepping up of his pay so as to bring it at par with his junior Vimika Sharma, Teacher and that his case was processed at different levels is not disputed. With regard to the communication of the respondent No.5 pointing out discrepancy in the fixation of salary of petitioner on his promotion to the post of Teacher on 11/6/2009, the Department in its reply has submitted that the communication of Accountant General was responded and the error pointed out was corrected. Recovery of Rs. 48,249.00 was worked out and the same was conveyed to the respondent No.5. It is submitted that faced with the recovery, as pointed out by the respondent No.5, the petitioner woke up from slumber and represented for stepping up of his salary. The matter was considered and was recommended by the respondent No.4 to the higher authorities for taking appropriate decision in the matter. The respondents, however, have denied that the petitioner was entitled to pay parity with the Vimika Sharma. The applicability of provisions of Article 77 of J &K CSR (Vol. I) to the case of the petitioner is also disputed in the reply affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 4. To the same effect is the reply affidavit by the respondent No.5 who has mainly justified the pointing out of wrong fixation of salary of the petitioner in the cadre of Teacher. With regard to stepping up, the respondent No.5 has submitted that the stepping up was within the domain of respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 had no role to play in that regard. This is, in short, the reply affidavit filed by the respondent No.5.