IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 12593 of 2008. Decided on : 8th April, 2011. Ram Chand ..…Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another …… Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : None for the petitioner, though served. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. Justice V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) None appears on behalf of the petitioner who is duly served for today. 2. The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (1) & (ii): “i) That the impugned order is in violation of judgment vide Ann.P3 and also contrary to Punjab pattern which is being followed by the H.P. Govt. of pay scale of JBT and Head Teacher. ii) That the impugned order is wrong and illegal as no recovery can be effected even after three years but in the present case the respondent is going to effect the recovery after the long gap of nine years this submission of the applicant is fully covered by 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 the decision of Apex Courts in the following cases:- i) Inder Paul Yadav Vs. Union of India 1985 (2) SCC 640 II) 1993 23 ATC 902 iii) SLP No. 13370/96 and CWP No. 3182 of 2001 dated 18.11.1996 and 4.9.2001 of SC as well as P&H High Court..” 3. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 6 (i) and (iii): “(i) That the contents of this para are admitted to the extent that the applicant is citizen of India. Rest of the para is not admitted because the applicant is not at all entitled to file and maintain the present original application as the action of the respondent State cannot be held wrong and illegal because the same scale has been granted to the JBT and Head Teacher vide annexure R-I. Therefore, the recovery of excess amount has to be recovered from the applicant for which he was not at all entitled on his posting as Head Teacher. iii) That this para also calls for no submission being a matter of record. However, it is submitted that no higher responsibilities are entrusted to the Head Teacher as the duty and work of JBT and Head Teacher is to teach the primary classes and no extra activities are performed by the Head Teachers. It is further stated that since the same scale has been given to the JBT and Head Teachers vide annexure R- I. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled for the benefit under FR 22 (i)(a)(i). Hence, the excess amount as received by the applicant on posting as Head Teacher has to be recovered. ” 3 4. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance, he shall be free to make a representation along with copy of this judgment to the respondents/competent authority within one month from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within next three months in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 5. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP (s), if any. (V.K.Sharma.) Judge. 8th April, 2011. (jai)