DEVENDRA KUMAR GARG Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dated 18.7.1972, an appointment was given to the Petitioner as Teacher with Panchayat Samiti, Sirohi. The services of the Petitioner subsequent thereto were taken over in the Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan. The Deputy Director (Woman), Department of Education then by an order dated 29.5.1979 appointed the Petitioner as Lower Division Clerk in the pay-scale of Rs. 355-570, purely on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months or till availability of selected incumbents, whichever is earlier. By an another order dated 8.10.1980, the Petitioner then was repatriated to his original office in the capacity of a Teacher. The Respondents made fixation of the Petitioner's pay in the pay-scale relating to the post of Teacher and also allowed selection grades under the orders dated 9.6.1992, 30.7.1998 and 27.10.2005. On revision of pay-scales, a pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000 was given to him, but that was withdrawn under an order dated 12.6.2008, and a fixation of the pay was made in the pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000. This was done by treating the Petitioner employed as Teacher under the order dated 8.10.1980. As per the Respondents, the Petitioner was employed as Lower Division Clerk and then as a Teacher, therefore, his services prior to appointment as Teacher could have not been taken into consideration, while making the fixation and also for the grant of selection grades.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.6.2008, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters) Appellate Tribunal with assertion that he was in regular employment of the Department of Education since 1972 as Teacher, therefore, the selection grades granted to him by computing his services from the date of his initial appointment were in accordance with law and the order dated 12.6.2008 treating his regular services only after repatriation is erroneous. Learned Tribunal by the judgment dated 21.10.2008 disposed of the appeal with the directions to the Respondents to disposed of the representation, if any, submitted by the Petitioner and further not to effect any recovery in pursuance of order dated 12.6.2008, till then.

(3.) The Petitioner as a consequent to the directions given by the learned Tribunal submitted a representation to the Director (Education) on 20.9.2009, and that is yet not been disposed of, however, the amount said to be paid in excess has been recovered by the Director, Pension and Pensioners Welfare, Rajasthan, Jaipur at the time of retirement of the Petitioner. Hence, this petition for writ, to challenge the recovery of the amount made from the retiral dues.