DHARMSHILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted all the three petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers prior to 1986 making them entitled to the pay revision from 1986. The then State of Bihar took a decision, vide Resolution dated 18th December, 1989, of pay revision with effect from 1st January, 1986 and as per the terms of this resolution, two increments are allowed to the Assistant Teachers as per Rule 22 (C) of the Fundamental Rules. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that in the year 1993 wisdom prevailed upon the then Government of Bihar and vide Resolution dated 20th February, 1993, it modified the earlier resolution dated 18th December, 1989 and decided to give only one increment as per Rule 2(1) (a) (2) of the Fundamental Rules instead of two which was given as per Rule 22 (C) of the Fundamental Rules. Meanwhile, the Teachers, who were allowed the benefit of two increments and against whom respondents have taken action earlier preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Patna and the judgment of that writ petition was challenged in an L.P.A. which was also dismissed but inspite of all above the respondents are about to make recovery from the salary of the present petitioners.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir & Others -vs.- State of Bihar & Others, 2009 3 SCC 475 has been pleased to decide that Rule 22 (C), as per which two increments were given, has already been deleted vide notification dated 30th August, 1989 and therefore, it was a mistake on the part of the government to allow two increments vide Resolution dated 18th December, 1989 because as per-Rule 22 (I) (a) (2), which has substituted Rule 22 (C), only one increment should have been given. But considering the fact that there was no misrepresentation of fraud on the part of the employees, no recovery should be made of the amount paid in excess to them. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the present case petitioners are Assistant Teachers, who had already got two increments and since there was no suppression of facts on the part of the present petitioners or any misrepresentation made by the present petitioners, no-recovery of the amount paid in excess can be made from their salary in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir & Others -vs.- State of Bihar & Others, 2009 3 SCC 475 and submitted that now since the petitioners have already retired, there may not be any revision of their pay-scale and prayed for stay against the recovery of the excess amount paid to them.