IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6744 OF 2001 (SS) Sri Karan Singh …….Petitioner. Versus State of U.P. and others. …..….Respondents. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for petitioner. List revised. Case called out twice. None appears for the respondents. 11th November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for petitioner. List revised. Case called out twice. None appears for the respondents. This is an old matter. The writ petition was filed in the year, 1995 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and was subsequently transferred to this High Court. All the pleadings in this case have been exchanged. The matter is being disposed of finally. The case of the petitioner is that he was given selection grade in the year, 1975 and consequently the said selection grade was withdrawn/discontinued in terms of the order dated 31.03.1995. The brief facts which emerge from the pleadings in this case are that the petitioner was working as an Instructor Drawing (Civil) at K.L. Polytechnic, Roorkee. He was given selection grade in the year, 1975. However, in the year, 1988, the Government has passed an order, whereby the selection grade was given to the employees 2 calculating their State-wise seniority. This order was challenged by one of the employees namely Sri R.S. Singh Instructor in I.E.R.T. Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 25133 of 1988 praying that the calculation of seniority on State level is not correct and the correct approach is to calculate the seniority on the basis of Institution-wise. This writ petition was allowed and it was held by the learned Single Judge that seniority has to be calculated institute-wise and not State-wise. This judgment is of the year, 1993. Consequently an order was passed in the year, 1995, whereby the selection grade given to the petitioner was withdrawn and a recovery was also initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner has, however, retired from his service, during the pendency of the writ petition. This was in year, 1997. All that has to be seen by this Court at present is as to whether the recovery being made against the petitioner is legally permissible. It is an undisputed fact that the period during which the petitioner was getting the selection grade, the petitioner had put in service in the Institution. It is not the case of any of the parties that the petitioner had received the selection grade by misleading the authorities or by any fraud or forgery. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner that the selection grade which was earlier given to him has now been withdrawn. As far as the subsequent denial of the selection grade to the petitioner is concerned, this Court is not interfering in the matter, however, inasmuch as the recovery from the petitioner is concerned, it does not seem to be just and proper. The petitioner has now also retired from service. Therefore, in view of this Court, it is not proper that a recovery be initiated against the petitioner at this stage. 3 In Shyam Babu Verma and others. Vs. Union of India and others (1994) 2 SCC 521, the Apex Court under similar facts had held: “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 but as they have received the 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.” Accordingly, the writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall not recover any amount from the petitioner, which was already paid to him as an enhanced salary by placing him on selection grade in the year, 1975. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 11.11.2009 Rathour