M.L. GOYAL Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner M.L. Goyal, inter-alia, with prayer that order passed by the settlement committee of the respondent dated 22.10.1997 and me order of the appellate committee passed on 19.02.1998 be quashed and set aside and the action of the respondent in reducing his basic pay on his absorption may be declared illegal and respondents be directed to fix the petitioner in the pay scale 1640-2900 with effect from 01.07.1995 at the stage 2050 as basic pay. It is further prayed that the respondents be further directed to refund the amount recovered from the salary of the petitioner for the period from 01.07.1995 to 31.05.1996. Petitioner was originally working with M/s. Instrumentation Limited, Kota, as Senior Office Assistant. According to petitioner, he had the post of Senior Office Assistant with M/s. Instrumentation Limited, whereas the respondent has said that his post with M/s. Instrumentation Limited was that of a typist. Petitioner was taken on deputation with respondent Rajasthan State Electricity Board on the post of Legal Assistant vide order dated 07.06.1994 for a period of one year. Petitioner at the time of his deputation, was getting salary in the pay scale 1327-2652, and his basic pay was Rs. 2022/-. In order to protect his basic pay, respondent-Board appointed the petitioner as Legal Assistant on deputation in the pay scale 1400-2900, on the basic pay of Rs. 2000/- and the differential amount of Rs. 22/- was treated as his personal pay. After completing the period of one year, petitioner submitted an application to respondent-Board for his absorption on the post of Legal Assistant with effect from 25.06.1995. Respondent-Board absorbed the petitioner as such by order dated 30.05.1996 with effect from 01.07.1995 in the pay scale 1400-2300, with initial fixation at the stage of Rs. 1650/- as on 01.07.1995. Petitioner raised an objection that at the time of his deputation his salary was fixed at Rs. 2022/-, his basic pay could not be reduced. Petitioner made a representation to the Chairman of the respondent-Board on 24.06.1996 and 17.08.1996. The respondent then appointed the petitioner by order dated 11.12.1996 on the post of Legal Assistant in the pay scale 1400-2600 with effect from 01.07.1995. According to petitioner, respondent-Board decided to recover from petitioner the excess payment made from 01.07.1995 to 31.05.1996. Petitioner aggrieved thereby, raised the dispute before the settlement committee of the respondent-Board on 17.05.1997, which rejected the claim of petitioner vide order dated 22.10.1997. Dissatisfied therewith, petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate committee on 31.12.1997, which too rejected the same by order dated 19.02.1998. It is therefore that petitioner has approached this court in the present writ petition.

(2.) Shri Rahul Kamwar, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that decisions of the settlement committee as also the appellate committee are wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. Already when petitioner was getting higher pay at the time of deputation, the respondent-Board, on his absorption, could not have reduced his basic pay. Its action is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The settlement committee and the appellate committee have decided the issue without application of mind. The settlement committee only held that since in the absorption order of the petitioner dated 30.05.1996 with effect from 01.07.1995, his basic pay was mentioned as 1400-2300, yet if he joined without murmur, now he cannot raise the dispute. It is contended that petitioner at the time of absorption very much raised the dispute and his grievance was partially remedied by the Chairman of the respondent-Board. It is settled proposition of law that if the rules are silent on a particular aspect, then general law applies. As per the general law, pay of an employee cannot be reduced and has to be protected at the time of absorption. It is wrong to suggest that petitioner accepted the order of absorption dated 30.05.1996, whereunder he was ordered to be paid the pay scale at lower stage than the one he was receiving earlier. Action of the respondents in reducing the pay from retrospective effect is therefore illegal. In fact, the petitioner was appointed with the respondent-Board by order dated 30.05.1996 with effect from 01.07.1995. Copy of such order was received by him on 07.06.1996. Even if the absorption of the petitioner was to be given effect from an anterior date, the respondent-Board could not have decided to retrospectively reduce his pay and order to recover the amount. Learned counsel for petitioner referred to Regulation 24 of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1964, and argued that according to said Regulation, basic pay of an employee cannot be reduced. The Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that even if an employee has been paid certain money on account of wrong pay fixation in higher pay scale, such excess payment cannot be recovered unless it is shown that any misrepresentation was made by him or fraud was played. Learned counsel has also in support of his argument, relied on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Smt. Prativa Biswas and others v. Union of India and others, 2009 LabIC 2169.

(3.) Dr. P.C. Jain, learned counsel for respondent-Board opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner has suppressed the material facts inasmuch as he has not filed order of his original appointment with M/s. Instrumentation Limited, Kota. The factum of deputation has been denied contending that M/s. Instrumentation Limited, Kota, has got no communication nor any condition in their service to get any of the employee to be sent to respondent-Board on deputation. Petitioner was more than willing to be absorbed in the services of respondent-Board and therefore he voluntarily resigned the services of M/s. Instrumentation Limited, Kota, where his pay scale was 1440-1600-50-2300 with initial fixation at the stage of Rs. 1650/-, as on 01.07.1995. His next date of increment was to come after one year to be counted from 01.07.1995. He has concealed all these facts and wrongly stated that he was working as Legal Assistant. In fact, his service book shows that he was working with M/s. Instrumentation Limited, Kota as Senior Office Assistant Typing, which appears to be a post of Typist only. Since M/s. Instrumentation Limited, Kota, was on the verge of closer and the dearness allowance received by him at the time was much lesser than what dearness allowance was allowed to him in the respondent-Board, therefore petitioner has not been put to any disadvantage.