Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 159 (JHR)

Abhay Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2008-02-13

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
Order In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Letter No. 6/R-101/01-1553 dated 4.6.05 (Annexure-3) issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi and also the Letter No. 1146 dated 12.12.06 (Annexure-4) issued by the District Education Officer, Deoghar whereby the petitioner's pay scale has been reduced with retrospective effect with further direction to recover the amount purportedly paid in excess. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Laboratory Assistant in the Vocational Course for Accountancy and Audit in +2 School in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 by Office Order No. 11/NI-2031/93-SHI-509 dated 15.7.93. The eligibility criteria and educational qualification for the said post was I.A.I.Sc.I.Com. with working experience in corresponding field in a recognized institution/department of State or Central Govt. The petitioner having possessed the requisite educational qualification and eligibility was appointed to the said post in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600. Subsequently, the pay scale was revised at Rs. 4500-7000 w.e.f 1.1.96 and on the basis of the said pay scale he was paid his salary. Suddenly by the impugned order dated 4.6.05 (Annexure-3) the Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi sought to reduce the said pay scale of the petitioner with retrospective effect on the ground that he is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 45007000. The District Education Officer has passed the said impugned order dated 12.12.06 on the basis of the letter of the Director. The said pay scale has been sought to be reduced with effect from the date the petitioner was given the revised scale of Rs. 5000-8000. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that his pay scale has been reduced without giving him any notice and opportunity of hearing and the same is violative of the principles of natural justice. The said impugned orders are nullity and are liable to be quashed. Earlier the pay scale given to the petitioner i.e. of Rs. 1400-2600 was sought to be revised to 1500-8000. The respondents have now sought to alter the revised pay scale on the basis of qualification. Irrational distinction has been made and the petitioner's pay scale has been sought to be reduced without any just reason. Earlier the pay scale given to the petitioner i.e. of Rs. 1400-2600 was sought to be revised to 1500-8000. The respondents have now sought to alter the revised pay scale on the basis of qualification. Irrational distinction has been made and the petitioner's pay scale has been sought to be reduced without any just reason. The salary which has been given to the petitioner on revision of pay was fixed by the respondents themselves and there was no mis-representation on the part of the petitioner in getting the said revised pay scale. The petitioner is, thus, not liable to refund any amount, and the impugned order of recovery on the ground of excess payment of salary to the petitioner, is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unjust. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating, inter alia, that the petitioner was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 and subsequently the pay scale was revised at Rs. 5000-8000 for those who were recruited with the qualification of BSC with Diploma Certificate. The pay scale for others on revision was sanctioned at Rs. 4500-7000. The petitioner being Intermediate is not entitled to get the salary in the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. The impugned orders have been issued in view of the letter dated 1.9.2000 issued by the Government of Bihar fixing the said pay scale and there is no arbitrariness or illegality therein. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials appearing on record. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Laboratory Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 which was subsequently revised at Rs. 5000 to 8000. Earlier the said scale was sought to be revised as there was no question of any distinction and on that basis, the respondents themselves had sanctioned the revised scale and paid the petitioner's salary on the basis of the said revised scale. The ground on which the petitioner's• pay scale has been reduced is not at all relevant in the case of the petitioner. The letter dated 1.9.2000 issued by the Government of Bihar was in different context which has got nothing to do with the reduction of the petitioner's pay scale which has been granted on revising the scale of Rs. 14002600. The letter dated 1.9.2000 issued by the Government of Bihar was in different context which has got nothing to do with the reduction of the petitioner's pay scale which has been granted on revising the scale of Rs. 14002600. This is not the case that the petitioner made any representation in getting the said pay scale. In the case of Sahib Ram reported in 1995 Suppl.(1) SCC 13 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any amount paid to an employee without any misrepresentation cannot be recovered from him. The same view has been taken by a Full Bench of this Court in State of Jharkhand vs. Padamlochan Kalindi reported in 2008(1) JCR 5 (Jhr.): 2007(4) JLJR 451 ]. By the impugned letters the respondents have sought to reduce the pay scale of the petitioner, but before passing the impugned order no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. . 6. The respondents have no authority to arbitrarily take any decision for reduction of pay scale of the petitioner and to put him to a disadvantageous position without giving him notice and opportunity of hearing. The said impugned orders are violative of the principles of natural justice and are not sustainable. This writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders as contained in Annexures-3 & 4 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount, if any recovered in the name of excess payment. The respondents are also directed not to recover any further amount from the petitioner in the name of excess payment. 7. However, if the respondents have any valid reason for revising or reviewing the pay fixation of the petitioner, they are at liberty to proceed for the same in accordance with the established procedure of law.