Kishori Lal vs State of H.P. and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioner had been working as Junior Secondary Teacher (JST) in the year 1996, when he was promoted as Centre Head Teacher (CHT), vide Annexure A-1. In the year 2002, one letter, Annexure A-2, was addressed to the Petitioner that he was liable to refund a sum of Rs. 50,211/-, on account of wrong pay fixation of his pay against the post of Centre Head Teacher, as pointed out by the Audit and Accounts Office. Petitioner is aggrieved by this letter, copy Annexure A-2.

Respondents, in their reply, have stated that the pay fixation done on the promotion of the Petitioner was contrary to the provisions of FR 22 (1)(a)(i). According to the reply, when the pay fixation was done, pay scale had not been revised and in the unrevised pay scale, then prevailing, Centre Head Teachers had a different pay scale, which was higher than the pay scale of Junior Secondary Teachers, from which post the Petitioner was promoted. When pay revision, effective from 1.1.1996 took place, pay scales of Junior Secondary Teachers and Centre Head Teachers were merged and they were placed in the same scale.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

When the Petitioner was promoted and his pay was fixed, there was a separate scale of pay for Centre Head Teachers, which was higher than the scale of pay of Junior Secondary Teachers and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in the fixation of pay of the Petitioner. However, when the pay scales were revised retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.1996, pay scales of Junior Secondary Teachers and Centre Head Teachers were merged and one pay scale for both the posts had been notified. It was because of this situation, arising out of pay revision, that audit objection was raised and the Respondents issued the impugned letter Annexure A-2.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, has held that where wrong pay fixation takes place for no fault of a government servant, equity demands that recovery, on account of overpayment of pay, should not be effected.

In the present case, not only that the Petitioner was not at fault, but even the functionaries of the Respondents, who fixed the pay initially under the unrevised pay-scales of pay, were not at fault. Therefore, aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court applies with double vigour to the facts of the present case.

Consequently, petition is allowed and the impugned letter, Annexure A-2, which is dated 26.12.2002, is quashed and set aside.

Disposed of.