Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 841 (MP)

Jagannath Chaudhary v. State of M. P.

2012-09-03

S.C.SHARMA

body2012
ORDER 1. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the matter, the above cases were heard analogously together and a common order is being passed. The facts of Writ Petition No.846/2012(s) are being narrated under : 2. The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2011, 29.1.2011 and 20.12.2011, by which the respondents have ordered recovery against the petitioner. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Dresser on 6.3.1980 in the pay-scale of Rs.155-180 and by an order dated 8.3.1985, he was granted higher pay-scale in the time scale of pay of Rs.485-740. The petitioner has further stated that the recruitment rules in respect of Dresser were enacted in the year 1989 known as Madhya Pradesh Public Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial (related to Directorate of Health Services) Class III Services Recruitment Rules, 1989 and the post of Dresser Grade I was a promotional post from the post of Dresser Grade II. The petitioner has further stated that his appointment order was reviewed by the authorities and he was appointed as a Dresser Grade II by an order dated 30th November, 2010 with effect from his initial date of appointment and as the post of Dresser Grade II is carrying a lower pay-scale, the respondents have passed the consequential orders directing recovery in the matter. The petitioner is only aggrieved by the recovery initiated by the respondents. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no recovery can be ordered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Shyambabu Verma v. Union of India [ (1994)2 SCC 521 ], and Sahibram v. State of Haryana [(1994)2 SCC 52]. 4. Learned Government Advocate on the other hand, has argued before this Court that initial appointment of the petitioner was reviewed and as he has been treated Dresser Grade II w.e.f. 6.3.1990, hence, consequential recovery on account of pay fixation has become inevitable. However, it has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioner was not at fault in the matter of pay fixation at any point of time nor there was any misrrpresentation on the part of the petitioner at any level. 5. However, it has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioner was not at fault in the matter of pay fixation at any point of time nor there was any misrrpresentation on the part of the petitioner at any level. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. 6. In the present case, record reveals that it was the mistake committed by the respondents in appointing the petitioner initially on the post of Dresser Grade I. The appointment order was rectified on 30th November, 2010 and the respondents have appointed the petitioner as Dresser Grade II with retrospective effect, i.e., w.e.f. 6.3.1980. The respondents have also passed necessary orders revising pay fixation in case of the petitioner from time to time and consequential recovery has been ordered. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has never misrepresented any fact before the department in the matter of appointment nor in the matter of pay fixation. The recovery ordered by the respondents in light of judgment delivered in the case of Shyambabu Verma (supra), and Sahibram (supra), is certainly bad in law. Resultantly, the present writ petition is allowed. The recovery ordered by the respondents is quashed, however, the pay fixation is upheld. 7. The other identical petitions are also allowed.