Data Ram vs State of Haryana and Others

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwaliam J.—Petitioner Data Ram was appointed as a Clerk in the office of Superintending Engineer, Chandigarh Circle, PWD (B&R) Branch, Haryana, at Chandigarh. He was promoted as an Assistant and thereafter as a Senior Accounts Clerk by respondent No. 3 on 19.8.2002. The basic pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 6,500/- in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-7850 from the date of his promotion. The next date of increment of the petitioner was 1.3.2003.

In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order dated 12.12.2007 (Annexure P7) whereby the Superintending Engineer, Chandigarh Circle, PWD (B&R) Branch, Haryana, at Chandigarh, has ordered that recovery of Rs. 13,693/- be made from the petitioner be set aside. The petitioner has further prayed for the quashing of the order dated 25.1.2007 (Annexure P2), whereby the respondent No. 3-Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&R) Branch, Naraingarh, District Ambala, has reduced the basic pay of the petitioner from Rs. 7,100/- to Rs. 6,950/- per month. The petitioner has further prayed that the respondents be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 13,693/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, which was recovered from him.

In the written statement filed, the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk on 1.9.1971. Thereafter, he was promoted as Sub Divisional Clerk on 28.8.1993. The Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "ACP") was implemented from 1.1.1996. The petitioner was subsequently granted pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-7100-EB-150-7850 under ACP Scheme, after completion of 20 years of service for working on the post of Sub Divisional Clerk. The department has stated that due to wrong interpretation of Rule 15 and a note below Sub-rule (2) of the Assured Career Progression Rules, the petitioner was granted double benefits, firstly on his promotion as Senior Accounts Clerk and secondly on the grant of higher scale under second ACP Scheme. The stand of the department is that the increment/standard pay scale, under ACP Scheme, was granted to only those employees who were suffering due to stagnation. The clarification of the Rule had come lateron and the increment was paid by the employer earlier.

Apparently, this was done by the department under the bonafide mistake. There was no misrepresentation, deception or fault on the part of the petitioner.

The present writ petition was listed along with Civil Writ Petition No. 2799 titled as "Budh Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors." decided on 16.8.2010, wherein the Full Bench of this Court has held that in case the amount has been paid to an employee under bonafide mistake and there is no fault, misrepresentation or deception on the part of the employee, such an amount cannot be recovered.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is partly accepted and the impugned order dated 12.12.2007 (Annexure P7) is quashed. It is further directed that no amount shall be recovered from the petitioner which was paid to him by granting scale under the ACP Scheme, under the bonafide mistake. However, action of the respondents in re-fixing the pay of the petitioner is upheld.