1 CWP (T) No.7940 of 2008 11.11.2010 Present: Mr.Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned order dated 18.6.2001, Annexure P-2, passed by the respondent No.4 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the applicant may be held entitled for payment of the salary she has received and the respondents may kindly be directed not to effect any recovery from the salary of the applicant. (iii) Any other or further order which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be kindly be granted in favour of the applicant, which is necessary in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Annexure P-2 reads as under:- “No.EDn.Pry-II-Lekha-Pariksha(25/2000-01 Office of the BPEO Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, HP Dated Ghumarwin: 18.6.2001 To All the Headmasters, Govt. Primary Schools, District Bilaspur, H.P. Memo: In the above noted subject the Accountant General (Lekha Pariksha) Shimla vide his letter No. KJPS/Siksha/ 2202/2001-02/1165-66 dated 5/2001 the contract teachers working under the Block Primary Education Officer Ghumarwin-II, has been paid excess amount particulars of the same are given below:- 2 HRA IR G.R.20% Total amount Period 1433 2584 3366 Rs.7383/- 5/99 to 12/99 & 417 x6 Rs.2502/- 7/2K to 6/2001. 585 x 10 Rs.5850/- 1/99 to 6/1999. 168 x 1 Rs. 168/- 7/99 to 12/99. 5/2001. Total: Rs.15903/- You are informed that to direct the concerned teachers to deposit amounting to Rs.15903/- through Challan. On the above noted subject Rs.3246/- and Rs.1233/- as house rent and Rs.125/- previous allowances and Rs.200/- as I.R. and Rs.120/- total comes to Rs.4924/- has been paid to the teachers by the Education Shimla. The said teachers are entitled for the scale of Rs.1200/- plus 203/- Rupees 2136/- plus house rent Rs.125/- and previous allowance of Rs.125/- total comes to Rs.3961/- so the payment amounting to Rs.963/- has been paid excess to the said teachers. Sd/- Block Pry. Education Officer, Ghumarwin, II, Distt.Bilaspur,HP” 3. On 19.11.1997 petitioner was appointed as JBT teacher on contract basis. He continued to work as such in the pay scale of Rs.1200-Rs.2100/. It appears that the State of Himachal Pradesh revised the pay scale of teachers w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The new pay scale was Rs.1200-2100. Payments were disbursed to the petitioner upto 2001 in accordance with the revised pay scale. It cannot be said disputed that the revised scale was agreed to and disbursed to the petitioner without any misrepresentation on his part. He also did not take any part in release of the amount. The same was done under the wrong interpretation/ mistake on the part of the concerned officials. 3 4. Respondents discovered that the petitioner, who was entered on contract basis was not entitled to the benefits of revised pay scale and consequently issued impugned letter dated 18.6.2001 seeking recovery of Rs.15,903/- from the petitioner. 5. From the terms of the appointment and the draft agreement it is apparent that the contract teachers are not entitled to the revised pay scale. Consequently, petitioner cannot be held entitled to the benefits of the revised pay scale to which the regular employees are entitled to. 6. The issue is of recovery of the amount paid in excess to the petitioner. 7. As has been noticed hereinabove, the petitioner was not at fault at any point in time, neither had he misrepresented nor had he any say in the payment of the said amount to him. The recovery is sought to be effected after a period of over one decade. 8. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 521 and Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana & ors, (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 18, respondents are directed not to recover Rs.15,903/- from the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of. 11th November, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.