IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1823 of 2007 Dinesh Chandra Pantola ...Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. A. M. Saklani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. A. M. Saklani, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was a work charge employee in Irrigation Department of the State of Uttarakhand. With effect form 1.1.1996, he was regularized in service as per the government order dated 31.12.1997. Although employees who were in a regular service on 1.1.1996 were liable to be given 40% increased basic salary, this benefit was given to the petitioner with effect from 20.1.1998. The petitioner continued to get this increased salary for almost 10 years, the respondents passed a recovery order dated 17.12.2007 by which it was stated that the petitioner continued to get the increased salary due to inadvertence, as such the salary was only liable to be given to such employees who were already employed on 1.1.1996 and thereafter there is a clarification in Clause 3 which shows that all such employees who were employed on 1.1.1996 and thereafter will not be given this benefit. 3. In view of this Court Clause (1) and the clarification in Clause (3) appear to be contradictory in nature. Moreover, not much consideration has gone into by the concerned authorities before passing the impugned order particularly in 2 view of the fact that the petitioner continued to get the increased pay for more than 10 years. 4. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the direction to the Secretary, Irrigation Department to decide the matter as to whether the petitioner was actually liable to be given this benefit as per the Government Order dated 31.12.1997 which is regarding the re-fixation of salary, inter alia, of the petitioner which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Moreover, as regarding the recovery of arrears of the petitioner, this is totally unjustified inasmuch as this amount was not given to the petitioner by any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, and particularly in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in Shyam Babu Verma and Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 which states as follows:- “11. Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs.330-480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only after the period of 10 years they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs.330-560 since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from January 1, 1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to them. Accordingly, we direct that no steps should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners due to the fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no way responsible for the same.” 5. Therefore, in any case there was no fault on the part of the petitioner for getting this increased pay scale and the recovery is totally unjustified. As such, the order dated 17.12.2007 is set aside. 3 6. As regarding whether the petitioner is actually liable to get increased salary or not, the matter has already been referred to the Secretary, Irrigation Department to decide the matter on the representation filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible but definitely within a period of six weeks from today. 7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 8.11.2011 Kuldeep