Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2031 (PNJ)

H. K. Bhutani v. State Of Haryana

2007-11-20

T.P.S.MANN

body2007
Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. The petitioners are invoking issuance of a writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 3.12.1997 passed by respondent No. 3 vide which benefits of higher standard pay scales granted to them were sought to be withdrawn/recovered. 2. According to the petitioners, they were initially employed as Junior Engineers with the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tube-well Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation). When the Corporation started going into losses, the Haryana Government decided to transfer its employees to the Health Department. Accordingly, an order was issued on 18.4.1990 by which the services of the employees working with the Corporation were transferred to the Public Health Department and their services, accordingly, placed at the disposal of the said department on the request of its Engineer-in-Chief. Subsequently, on 5.2.1993, respondent No. 3 declared that the various Junior Engineers of the Corporation, including the petitioners, stood absorbed as officiating Junior Engineers in the Public Health Department. It was also stated that the benefit of the previous service rendered by the petitioners and others in the Corporation would be given in the matter of fixation of pay and leave only and not towards seniority. On 7.8.1993, the State of Haryana issued instructions that those employees, who had completed 8 and 18 years of service would be entitled to the grant of additional increments. Though, the petitioners and others, who were similarly situated, were refused the counting of service rendered by them in the Corporation and therefore, not granted the benefit of additional increments, yet they challenged the said action of the Government by filing CWP No. 1739 of 1995, which was allowed on 31.5.1995 and the respondents were directed to count the service rendered by the petitioners in the Corporation for fixation of their pay, grant of increments, special pay permissible after rendering of 8 and 18 years of service. In the meantime, on 8.2.1994, instructions were issued by the Government to grant time bound higher standard pay scales to the employees on their completing 10 years and 20 years of service. Consequently, the petitioners and others started getting the benefit of higher standard pay scales. However, on 3.12.1997, respondent No. 3 passed an order for withdrawing higher standard pay scales granted to the employees with immediate effect granted to those employees, who had rendered their services in the Corporation. Consequently, the petitioners and others started getting the benefit of higher standard pay scales. However, on 3.12.1997, respondent No. 3 passed an order for withdrawing higher standard pay scales granted to the employees with immediate effect granted to those employees, who had rendered their services in the Corporation. The petitioners represented to the respondents against the impugned order but could not get any favourable response. Pleadings that the impugned order passed by the respondents withdrawing the higher standard pay scales was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners submitted that the impugned order, Annexure P-5, be set aside. 3. The case of the respondents is that the benefit of previous services rendered by the petitioners in the Corporation was to be given to them in the matter of fixation of pay and leave only and no other benefit towards seniority, etc., was to be given. Most of the employees, who had filed CWP No. 1739 of 1995 had completed 8 and 18 years of service in the Corporation itself and therefore, they were entitled to the grant of the financial benefits for the services rendered in the Corporation, i.e., for the purposes of pay, increments and other monetary benefits. Neither of the two petitioners had put in requisite period of service with the Corporation and therefore, they were not entitled to grant of additional increments and higher standard pay scales. As such the impugned order was rightly passed so as to withdraw the benefits which had been wrongly granted to them. 4. It may be mentioned here that on 25.9.1998, when notice of motion was issued, this Court had stayed the recovery of the benefits, which had wrongly been extended to the petitioners. However, it was ordered that the future pay shall be as per the pay as then fixed. 5. While arguing the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that he is not challenging the impugned order to the extent it had withdrawn the benefits of higher standard pay scales granted to the petitioners, but confining his prayer to the recovery of the excess amount paid to them. 5. While arguing the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that he is not challenging the impugned order to the extent it had withdrawn the benefits of higher standard pay scales granted to the petitioners, but confining his prayer to the recovery of the excess amount paid to them. Learned counsel has relied upon Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) Service Cases Today 668 and Union of India v. M. Bhaskar and others, 1996(4) Service Cases Today 56, to contend that the higher standard pay scales were granted to the petitioners, not on the basis of any fraud or misrepresentation on their part and, therefore, the same cannot be ordered to be recovered from them. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that if certain benefit had been granted to an employee on the basis of a bona fide mistake, the Government was competent to rectify the same. The administrative authority had an inherent right to rectify its own mistake unless there was some specific provision of law which prohibited taking of such course. 7. As is clear from the office order, Annexure P-4, the petitioner No. 1 was allowed higher standard pay scale with effect from 18.7.1996 while petitioner No. 2 from 6.1.1997. Both the petitioners had been regularly receiving the benefit of higher standard pay scales for a period of about one year when the impugned order was passed so as to withdraw those benefits. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners had played any fraud or made a misrepresentation when they were granted the higher standard pay scales. Whatever mistake occurred was at the hands of the respondents for which the petitioners cannot be blamed. 8. In Sahib Rams case (supra), the Honble Apex Court held that when an employee had been getting the benefit of any higher standard pay scale or increment, although he was not entitled to the same, the amount already received as a result of benefit of the higher standard pay scale cannot be recovered. Moreover, by that time the petitioners had already spent practically the entire amount and therefore, they would be exposed to hardship, if directed to return the benefits wrongly granted to them. Moreover, by that time the petitioners had already spent practically the entire amount and therefore, they would be exposed to hardship, if directed to return the benefits wrongly granted to them. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents not to recover the benefits of higher standard pay scales from the petitioners, which had already been received by them before the passing of the impugned order.