^.y- (_lt5^^ A.O^A BEFORE THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL A3' :JABALPURM.y^p^,f^J..,^,...,^3 ORIGINALAPPLICATIONNO^ OF200U •APPEItANT .®31?^...1;:: " aEiBOISBiENTS1 Smt. Mridula Sarkar age46years,w/oSlu-iS^arkar Posted as Assitant AucBfor, Bllaspur,M.P. VERSUS 1. STATEOFM.P. Through Vitta Mantralaya Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal M.P. 2. Sanchalak Sthaniya Nidhi Sampariksha Gwalior, M.P. 3. Up Sanchalak Sthaniya NidUi Sampariksha Bilaspur/M.P. jfy^s,- ^:earei^I'IONlJNDERSECTION-l90FTHESTATE^DMINISTRAT]ME ?S'Bff®?:1" : • . TMBlJNAlACt-1985. ::'' ^'•:'':' • iltk. BBf; ^3SS( <<ti«irt<i,y-ri1tf<i<B, Roitiy WBIWT,w?.C.'.^.2i'ttl.a^..^20 SIT^STtR^ (^fg^) 3I1^»T<l)Tf^lra? aw3ii^?Tdi<ii<t> g^irsR^rflcTaii^r SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra IVIohan Shrivastava, J. 28-01-2010 Shri Rakesh Pandey, cour|sel for the petitioner. IGovt. Advocate for the State/respondents. learded counsel for the parties, the petition is Shri Ajay Dwivedi, 'Deputy] With the consent of heard finally. By the instant petition, 17-12-1999 (Annexure A-1) pass soale earlier granted to the same has also been ordered. Learned counsel for the granted to the petitioner withoul practice by her. The respondent^ case and to pass appropriate consjdered the reoords of th^ proceeded to pass the order of ^ own policy, and therefore, oounsel further submits that in pay scale was erroneous yet the higher pay scale could not b^ On the other hand, learit Government had issued a oircij! Division Clerk and English Typis1| between September 1962 to 191 of service and had not been gi^ increment w.e.f. 19-04-1968. Thf <pKifo<l1i *fii»T^fls><9•(Rit^it ^3fRl*)31I^?[ tfie petitioner has assailed the order dated i^ed by the respondent No.3 by which the pay petiti(|iner has been withdrawn and recovery of the Ipetitioner submits that the pay-scaie wa^ their being any fraud or misrepresentation were under obligation to duly sorutinize tne lorders. It was the respondents wno had petitioner found her qualified and then )rant of two advance increments as per their witt(drawal of pay soale is arbitrary. Learned ar|y case, even if it is found that grant of higher wh^tever payments have been made to Fier on reoovered. |ed State counsel submits that initially the lar dated 1,7-06-1969 providing that Lower who have passed Hindi Typing Examination April, 1968 and have completed five years en any inorement, shall be entitled for two said policy decision was witridrawn E>y the yr.q -qi«|rt0,STTl'H^ld, RriW^ 3ii^?igiTfenw traT3li^?ianira) B^nm^ifersn^CT rf^ .^S:}. mj..i?IL/.^ *ll*lCTl ?RW •••••-••^•/-————|-^. ^p^20 311^91 IR^ (^fgd^) •^ *i<ilCT<Ili iiinT^f'I^tiSI i((u|^|< ^3fKl*l3II^9T subsequent circular dated 20-04-'|974 by which it was provided that in view of the memo dated 13-07-1973, it w^is ordered that for Lower Divjsion Clerk and Typist, passing Hindi Typing Exa|nination would be essential and the cut off date was provided i.e. 28-08-19' 1973, benefit of inorement shall appointed on the post of Lower pursuant to which, she gave her, not entitled for two advance ih pay scale is concerned, it has n| petitioner that the poiicy of graifi |1. It was thus provided that after 13'" July, |no longer be available. The petitioner was Division Clerk vide order dated 05-05-1973 Ijoining on 14-05-1973 and though she was crement which have been aranted to her erroneously. When the mistak^ was discovered, the order for granting inorement was withdrawn and recjovery has been ordered. have heard leamed oou)isel for the parties. As far as withdrawn of |3t been disputed by learned counsel for the jiting two advanoe increments was later on withdrawn providing that after 1^-07-1973, the said benefit will not be made available, and therefore, as the |t>etjtioner at the time of appointment was not possessed of certificate of typirfg, she may not be entitled to the said pay scale. In this view of the matt concerned, 1 do not find any ille^ that onoe salary has been paid (j recovered, even if it is founc] erroneously exoept in cases wh| scale was an outoome of any employee. In this view ofthe matterj ^r, in so far.as withdrawn of pay scale is |ality in the action. However, it is wetl settled (n a higher pay scale, the same could not be that the hjgher pay scale \vas granted sre it is found that suoh grant of higner pay fraud or m^representation practioed by the in so far as the aotion of recovery against the petitioner is ooncerned, the sarfie is illegal. and unsustainable in the eye of law. .F"^" ,l)l»a¥a%, /^r\. ?C-78 *i 1*101 ^ew \3CT| ^iqirtt), t»-a1'M<|<»,Rrtl'9y'< »^^.:?;..(2'}..(^.:l:°iy.&.c. an^?Tira^ ('pfg^) ^20 sii^itiiifeife aaiTan^CTtbii* Tumane Aooordingly, this petition against the petitioner is concern< made pursuant to the impugned refunded to the petitioner. forthwil CPKllc><Ill*fl*lwT^"lsK3 tlult^ll ^aiKlfan^r is partly allowed. In so far as the recovery d, the same is set aside. If any recovery was order from the petitioner, the same shall be h. No order as to oosts. sdL^swwa^ ^as'is^w yyS^ ,tfftfa V9S na iiB ^s^ • na r