1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1276 OF 2009 Hari S/o Shaleram Dhanje, Age : 58 Years, Occu. : Pensioner, R/o Nehru Nagar, Pachora Road, Pahurpeth, Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 3. The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 4. The Accounts Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 5. The Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Jamner, District Jalgaon. .. .. Respondents Shri S. V. Chandole, Advocate h/f Shri V. G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri N. B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 to 5. 2 CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER [Per B. R. Gavai, J. ] : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 05th March, 2008 passed by the respondent No. 5 herein, thereby directing to deduct an amount of Rs. 83,720/­ from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher with respondent No. 2/Zilla Parishad Jalgaon vide order dated 01st December, 1972. During the service, the petitioner completed his graduation and was granted scale of trained graduate teacher vide order dated 22nd January, 1986. 4. The petitioner was due for retirement on 31st March, 2008 and as such the verification of his service record for making pensionary benefits applicable to him was undertaken by the respondent No. 2/Zilla Parishad. In the said exercises the basic pay of the petitioner which was at Rs. 8,700/­ was brought down to Rs. 8,300/­. 5. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents 3 No. 2 to 5 have filed their affidavit in reply. It is stated that, though the petitioner had acquired B.A. degree prior to granting him trained graduate teachers pay on 22nd January 1986, he had not completed B. Ed. within a period of five years and as such his pay scale has rightly been reduced. However, from the perusal of Government Resolution dated 13th May, 1999, it is clear that if a candidate who has been granted trained graduate teachers scale does not acquire B. Ed. qualification within prescribed period, he is not entitled to further increments till he completes graduation. The said Government Resolution does not provide for reduction in the pay scale. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has in fact, completed his B. Ed. In that view of the matter, we find that, the action of the respondents in reducing the pay scale that too at fag end of petitioners service is not permissible in law. It is further settled law that, all recoveries on account of erroneous fixation of pay not attributed to employee is not permissible in law. The petition would also have to be allowed on another ground of not following the principles of natural justice while passing impugned order. In the result, we hold that the action of respondents in reducing the pay scale of petitioner from Rs. 8,700/­ to Rs. 8,300/­ was not permissible in law. Consequently, any recovery made from the petitioner will have to be set aside. If the amount is already recovered, same shall be repaid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. Needless to state that, the pension would be paid to the petitioner by treating his basic pay at Rs. 8,700/­ on the date of his retirement. 4 Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/Sept. 09