UDAI CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which arises for consideration in this case is that the petitioner was declared surplus and transferred to the Irrigation Division, Bhilwara as per requisition of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Bhilwara on February 22, 1968 as Mechanic Grade I from Mahi Project Circle, Banswara in the pay scale of Rs. 170 -10 -31012.5 -385 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 200/ - on the date of his transfer in the new office. He continued in the same pay scale all the time. It appears from Annexure 6 that the petitioner was getting the pay at the relevant time in the pay sale of Rs. 170 -10 -310 -12.5 -385 which was revised to the scale of Rs. 180 -10 -2 30 -15 -385 -20 -425 and his pay was fixed according to the new scale when he was transferred. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioner was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 130 -3 0 thereby causing him reduction in the pay scale vide Annexun -9 to the petition. By Annexure -10 the petitioner's pay was brought down to Rs. 170/ - and is pay was fixed in scale No 9 at Rs. 170/ - in the scale of Rs 130 -300. The petitioner, however, was getting much above that seals when he was so transferred. Hence the rule challenging the reduction in the pay on the ground that his is the case of transfer from one Department to the another and his pay was protected. In fact the petitioner was bound by the contract with the Government that he must serve the Government for three years after completion of the training imparted to him by the Government and he had no option to withdraw himself from the contract within that period. It appears, however, the petitioner was declared surplus and his service was to be terminated. According to the respondent it was benevolent on the part of the State Government to give him a job in another Department of the State, but his pay was fixed by mistake at higher level that he is entitled to get and, therefore, reduction in pay which he was obtaining due to mistake in calculation of fixing him in new scale, was in accordance with law.

(2.) MR . Calla on behalf of the respondent contended that scales of pay in a non -project area in respect of Irrigation Department and planned project are two different and, therefore, his pay was fixed on the basis of project area.

(3.) IN that view of the matter the order of reduction in pay of the petitioner cannot be sustained and must be set aside, which I hereby do and petitioner must be given the same pay scale which he was getting in the Department of Irrigation Planned Project all throughout before he is transferred to Mahi Project Workshop.