NARESH KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for quashing the objection dated 15.10.2009 raised by Respondent no. 4 (District Accounts Officer, Koderma) whereby Respondent no. 4 has raised objection with regard to pay fixation of the petitioner in pursuance to 6th Pay Revision granted by the Central Government. Further prayer has been made for quashing the recommendation made by Respondent no. 4, dated 26.02.2010, whereby it has directed to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner. Prayer has also been made for fixing the Revised pay scale of the petitioner as earlier fixed on 21.03.2009, considering the existing basic pay as on 01.04.2006 at Rs. 8,300/-. Factual Matrix:

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in Project High School, Badri, Gumla on 06.11.1984 by School Managing Committee and accordingly joining of the petitioner was accepted on 15.11.1984. The said appointment was affirmed by the District Education Officer vide memo no. 19 dated 11.01.1986. thereafter the petitioner was allowed full salary from 01.04.1986 in view of the Govt. Order as contained in memo no. 405 dated 19.7.1986. It is further case of the petitioner that vide order dated 01.12.1990 issued by District Education Officer, Gumla petitioner along with other teachers were given his arrears of salary from the date of joining that is 06.11.1984 to 01.04.1986 in view of the decision of the government. Subsequently petitioners pay scale was revised and the same was fixed in accordance with law considering the payment of arrears of salary. Thereafter petitioner was transferred from Project High School, Badri to Project High School, Chandwara, Hazaribag and accordingly the petitioner was released vide order dated 01.08.1991 by the Incharge Headmaster, Project High School, Badri, Gumla. Since then, the petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher continuously in the Project High School, Chandwara, Hazaribag. It has been further stated that after 5th pay revision petitioners scale was revised considering the and no objection whatsoever was raised with regard from the date of joining till 01.04.1986 from which the full salary was given to the petitioner and thereafter 6th pay revision. The pay scale of the petitioner was considered by the petitioner and on 21.03.2009, District Education Officer and some Accounts Officer for confirmation but the District Account Officer has wrongly raised objection with regard to consideration of arrears of salary, accordingly asked the respondents to correct the pay scale. The petitioner vide noting dated 15.10.2009 in view of the objection raised by the District Accounts Officer. The District Education Officer has revised the pay scale in accordance with law objection on 15.01.2010 and the sent the same for approval on which the District Accounts Officer made observation with necessary steps be taken for recovery of the excess payment by the petitioner and the same may be incurred in the service book. The petitioner has knocked the door of this court for quashing the aforesaid illegal orders.

(3.) Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that the impugned orders at Annexure 8 and Annexure 9 are tenable in the eyes of law. The respondents are vested with the powers of shifting the date of fixation of pay in view of the judicial pronouncements of this Hon'ble Court. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Tiwari further argues that respondents being the instrumentalities of Welfare State are supposed to act bona fidely, fairly and reasonably and to treat all the similarly situated persons equally, as in case of several other persons, the respondents have quashed the order of recovery and the amount has been refunded and the shifting of date have also been subsequently accorded. The learned counsel assumes that respondents be directed to correct the date in view of the judicial pronouncements and in view of the several orders passed by this Hon'ble Court. The learned counsel also submits that no recovery can be made in view of the audit objection which has also been held by the court in catena of decisions.