"\ ft-f^^- 103 'i i iiiiinilllNlliUlhi' HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHHATTISGAISH: BILASPUR DIVISION BBNCH CORUM : HON»BLESHm S.R. NAYAK, C.J. : HON^BLE SHRI D.R. DBSHMUKH, J. WRJT PETITION 952/2001 PBTITIONBR8 AJI RESPONDBNTS 2. The State of Chhattisgai'h, Through Priacipal Secretary, School Education Depm'tment, Maiiti'alaya, Raipur. The Block Education Officer, Matkharoda, District ~ Janjgir - Chainpa The Joio.t Director, Treasury and Accounts Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur The Joiat Director, PzibUc Instniction, BUaspur - Chhattisgaili VERSUS Foolsai Sone, Aged about 65 years, S/o ShriRamRai, Retd. He.ad Master, Girls Priinaiy School, Matkharoda, District ~ Jaiijgii' - Chaoipa, R/o Village aad Post Malkliaroda, Distdct - Janjgir ~ Champa. Registrar, The M.P. Admiaistrative Tribunal, RaipurBench, Raipur- Chhattisgai'h -^- J-04 Present : Shri Utkarsh Vemia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/ petitioners, Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Counsel for Uie respondeut no. 1. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 21st April 20061 The followiag oral order of the Court was passed by S.R. NAYAK, CJ: The State of Glihattisgarh aad its autliorities being aggrieved by the order of the Madhya Pradesh Adniinistrative Tribunal, Raipur Bench (for short the Tribunal) dated 19/12/2000 passed m Origin.al Application No.709/ 1999 have preferred Uiis Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 oftlie Constitution oflndia, The facts of the case, io. brief, are as foUows : The first respondent was appomted as Assistaiit Teacher w.e,f, 1/7/1959, He was absorbed as Assistaiit Teacher w.e.f. l/ 10/ 1963. Wliile servmg as such, m view of Uie recommendation made by the Chowdhary Pay Conimission, the pay of the first respondent was fixed iii fhe pay scale of Rs,515-10-575-15-800- 25-925. The arrears of pay Rs.529.30 was paid to the first respondent 011 25/10/1985. The first respondent undenvent Hmdi trauiinLg ia 1981 aad Science training dziring the period from 2/5/1976 to 31/5/1976. Consequent upon his luidergoiiig -^- ! 05 tramuig successfuUy, he was allowecl Time Bound Advance Scheme in the Pay Scale of Rs.635-950 with fhe next date ofiacrement on 30/7/1983. The first respondenfs pay was fixed at Rs. 1250/- per month on 1/1/1986 witii tlie next date of iiicrem.ent on 30/07/1986. Furthermore, as per the Pay Fixation Rules of 1990, the first respondeat's pay was fixed ui fhe pay-scale ofRs. 1200-40- 1440-50-2040 witii tJie next increment date on 30/07/1986. It is stated that he was also paid Rs.910 as arrears, Subsequently, the first respondent was promoted as Head Master aiid his basic pay was fixed at Rs.1490/-, Haviag served as Heacl Master at Prioiary School, Adiiiar, Uie first respondent retu'ed from. ser^ice on 31/7/1998 oii attamitig the age of supeiBiiauatiou. After the retirement ofthe first respondent, his service book was sent to the Joiat Director of Treasury, Accounts aad Pensions, Bilaspur, for settiuig his peusioneiy claiins. The Joiat Director of Treasury opined th.at the fixation of the first respondent's pay io. tlie pay- scale of Rs,515-925 was wrong aiid he was entitled to the pay- scale of Rs,485-740 only. In tlie premise of above opmion of the Joiiit Director of Treasuiy, Accounts and Pensiou, a sum of Rs.1,03,715/- was sought to be recovered froni the first respoudent being the excess ainount paid to hini. At that stage, the first respondent iastituted OA No 709/1999 before the Tribunal, contendiag fhat fixation of his pay m the pay scale of Rs.515-925 was regular aad legal aad the impiigned action to recover fhe so-called aUeged excess is ai'bibraiy -^- 108 and iUegal. The Original Application was opposed by the petitiouers by filing retuni, In thie retura, fhe ioipugiied actiou was sought to be supported by contendmg that since ttie first respondent was an untraiaed Teacher, his pay sliould have beeu fixed in tbie pay scale of Rs.485-740 instead of tlie pay scale of Rs.515-925. The Tribunal haviag placed reliaiice ou a circular dated 22/ II/1979 issued by flie Joiat Director ofTreasury, Public Education, Dtrectorate (M.P.) marked as aiinexure A-13 before the Tribunal, has opuied tiiat the fixation of the pay-scale of the first respoudent ui tlie pay-scale of Rs,515-925 is ia oixier aiid legal. Alteniatively, the Tribunal, has opiaed that suice tlie pay of the first respondent was fixed m. the pay-scale of Rs,515-925 -by the petitioners themselves without there being aiiy misreprcsentatiou or misleadiag on the part of the first responclent/eBiployee, the ioipugned recovery was unautliorized aad could not be sustaiaed ui the light of the Judginent of the Apex Court ia the case of Sahib 1 Rdfn s?s» State @f Hctryana and ofhers'*', Resultantly, the Tribunal aUowed the Origm.al AppUcation and quashed fhe inipugned action aad directed the petitioners herein to settle the pensionaiy claiois of the first respondent. Beiag aggrieved by tlie above order ofthe Tribunal, the writ petition is filed, We have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties, It was contended by tlie leamed Govt, Advocate for the petitioners tliat 1. 2 995 Supp (1) S. C. C. 18. -5'- 107 sio.ee adniittedly tiie first respondent was not a trabied teacher, he was not entitled to the pay-scale of Rs,515-925, io. terms of fhe recoininendation of Chowdhary Pay Coniniission and, therefore, no exception could be taken to tlie action of the petitionei^ in seekiiig to recover sum. of Rs. 1,03,715/- from fhe first respondent, wliich was paid ia excess to the first respondent. Leamed counsel for the first respondent, per<^nira, would support tlie mipiigned order of the Tribunal. Haviiig heard leanied counsel for Uie parties, theonly qiiestion tliat anses for our consideration is whether tlie petitioners are justified and have legatly acted ui seekuig to recover sum of Rs. 1,03,715/- towards the alleged excess payraent made to the first respondent. At the threshold, it needs to be noticed that it is nobody's case tiiat fhe pay of tlie first respondent was fixed by the petitioners ia tlie pay-scale of Rs,515-925 due to aay laisrepresentation made by fhe first respondent. The pay of tlie fli'st respondent was fixed by the Department itselfin pursuance of the recoBimendation niade by Chowdhary Pay Commission. The first respondent duriiig his tenure enjoyed tliat pay-scale and subsequently retired on attaiaiiig tlie age of superanuuatioii, The iaipugned action was uiitiated only after the first respondent retired on attahiiag the age of superaiinuation, If fhis is the factual matrix, in our considered opitiion, tiie law laid down by the -6- ^08 Apex Court m tlie case of Sahib Reun ^s. State offfarycina and ofhers^ (supra) appKes to the facts of the present case. On th.at count itsetf, fhe iinpugned action could not be sustained aad tiable to be quashed. Be that as it may, even ou Bierit also, we should say Uiat the pay-fixatiou of the pay of the first respondeiit in the pay-scale of Rs,515-925 was regiilar aad legal. Annexure A-13, Cii'cular to which reference is made by us supra du'ects that all the Assistant Teachers regardless of Uie fact wheth.er they have acquired trahimg qualification, tf they have put iii 20 years of qualif^'iiig service or attaitied tlie age of 50 years, are entitled to seek fixation of Uie pay m. terms of tlie recoBiniendation of Chowdhaiy Pay Commission, There is no dispute between the parties that 011 the relevaat date, the first respondent had put m more thaii 20 years of qiialifymg service aad this fact is noted by tlie Tribiuial ui its order aad that fact is not contested before us by the learaed Govt. Advocate, If tiiat is so, fixation of the pay of the first respoudent ia tlie pay-scale of Rs.515-925 is regular aiid legal. Lookmg from aixy aiigle, we do not find aiiy weighty or substaative grouad to mterfere wifh. the order made by the Tribunal. The writ petition is devoid of merit aad is accordmgly disiaissed, In the facts aad circuiastaiices of the case, the parties shall bear theu' respective costs, Sd/- Chief Justice 4UAtA Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge