R.M. MATHUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this writ petition is the order dt. 22.01.2001 whereby the respondents decided to recover from the petitioner amount of salary paid to him in excess of what according to them was admissible as per Rule 144A of the Rajasthan Service Rules read with Circular of the Finance Department dt. 22.02.1986.

(2.) SHRI Prahlad Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was serving on the post of Assistant Engineer with the Government of Rajasthan. He was selected for appointment by way of deputation as Fellow (Project) with the Institute of Development Studies (for short - I.D.S.) on a project 'Water Resources Management of Rajasthan'. This project was fully funded by 'Ford Foundation'. Learned Counsel referred to the communication dt. 20.08.1994 which was sent by Shri V.S. Vyas, Director of I.D.S. to Shri D.S. Meena, the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan informing that the petitioner has been selected for being taken on deputation as Fellow with the I.D.S. on deputation with the institute initially for a period of one year, which period was likely to be extended by one more year and that the I.D.S. offered to him pay in the scale of Rs. 3700 -5300 with ususal allowances but without any deputation allowance. It was argued that the petitioner was after his selection given the offer for working with IDS on deputation basis in the pay scale of Rs. 3700 -5300 with the ususual allowances and unlike in the case of government servants sent on deputation to other departments, he was not to be paid any deputation allowance. It was therefore that the petitioner accepted the offer. Learned Counsel submitted that when the petitioner was serving I.D.S, the audit party of the Accountant General (Audit) raised an objection with regard to payment of salary to the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 3700 - 5300 on the premise that according to Rule 144A, supra and the order issued by the Finance Department of the State Government thereunder, the petitioner being a substantive employee of the State Government, could be paid salary in the same scale in which he was receiving his pay in the parent department.