BANWARI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the orders vide which his pay has been revised from anterior date and the order wherein recovery of Rs. 2,05,945/- is sought to be made from his pension. The petitioner was appointed as Lab Assistant in the Irrigation Department on 27.11.1970. He was conferred permanent status on the post of Density Assistant on 31.3.1982. The petitioner was declared surplus in the Irrigation Department and was ordered to be absorbed as Patwari in the office of Collector, Alwar vide order dated 20.7.1991. The petitioner was relieved from the office of Irrigation Department on 13.3.1992. After having successfully completed the period of probation and having passed the Patwari examination, the petitioner was conferred permanent status on 25.11.1995. Vide order dated 28.10.1997, the petitioner was granted the benefit of first and second selection scale after having completed 9 & 18 years of service respectively with effect from 25.1.1992. The petitioner was granted the third selection scale on completion of 27 years of service with effect from 27.11.1997 vide order dated 29.1.2003. The petitioner sought voluntary retirement from service which was accepted with effect from 1.2.2003. It is stated that the petitioner was not paid full amount of gratuity and commutation of pension which compelled him to file CWP No. 1857/2005 which was admitted for regular hearing on 5.12.2006 and the petition is currently pending adjudication. The respondent No. 3 has passed order dated 14.5.2007 vide which the earlier orders dated 28.10.1997 and 29.1.2003 wherein the petitioner was held to be entitled to first and second selection grade with effect from 25.1.1992 and third selection grade with effect from 27.11.1997 were cancelled. Consequently, the orders dated 31.5.2007 (Annexure-11), 2.6.2007 (Annexure-12) and 11.6.2007 (Annexure-13) were passed vide which the dates for grant of selection grade were revised and recovery of Rs. 2,05,945/- was sought to be made from the petitioner. These orders have been impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had rightly been granted the benefit of selection grade by the earlier orders and the impugned orders could not have been passed without granting him any opportunity of hearing. There was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner at any stage and it would be unjust to effect recovery from the petitioner as he had retired over a decade ago.

(3.) Per contra, the learned State counsel stated that the impugned orders had been passed in accordance with law as the petitioner was not entitled to the selection grades from the earlier dates in terms of the orders which have now been revised.