IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No. 10081 of 2008 Decided on: August 24, 2011 Dr. V.K. Mahajan ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Paras Dogar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner had been working as Medical Officer for more than 14 years in the Health Department of State Government, when revision of pay-scales, effective from1.1.1996, took place. Revised pay scales of Medical Officers provided for placement of Medical Officers in higher pay scales, on completing certain prescribed number of years. One of such pay scales was `14350-18150 and the Medical Officers, on completion of 14 years services, were to be placed in this pay scale. Petitioner, who had completed 14 years service long before 1.1.1996, was placed in this pay scale, vide pay fixation order, copy Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É Annexure A-1, per which petitioner’s pay was fixed at the minimum of pay-scale i.e. `14,300/- and to this, an amount of `800/- was added, probably on account of NPA and the pay was thus fixed at `15100/-, in the pay scale of `14300- 18150. 2. In May, 2002, petitioner voluntarily retired. After his retirement, Order (copy Annexure A-2), which is dated 4.1.2003, was issued for recovery of `61,332/- from his retiral benefits, on account of over payment of salary, because of alleged wrong fixation of his pay, vide Annexure A-1. Petitioner is aggrieved by this order of recovery. 3. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that fixation of pay, done vide order, copy Annexure A-1, was subject to the instructions, which were to be issued subsequently by the Finance Department of the Government, and such instructions were issued on 23.6.2000, per which benefit of bunching was not to be given and, so, the pay of the petitioner was re-fixed at `14,300/-, the minimum of higher pay-scale. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Pay fixation order, copy Annexure A-1, suggests that petitioner’s pay was fixed at `15,100/-, not on account of any benefit of bunching, but by adding a sum of `800/-, which the petitioner was getting as NPA. 6. In any case, petitioner had not taken any part in the issuance of order of his pay fixation, leave alone his É3É making any misrepresentation for the alleged wrong fixation of pay, vide Annexure A-1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2009) 3 SCC 475, has held that where the pay of a government employee is fixed without his making any misrepresentation or fraud and such fixation is found to be wrong, recovery, on account of over-payment, cannot be made without affording him an opportunity of being heard. In the present case, admittedly, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, before impugned order Annexure A-2, for recovery of `61332/-, was passed. 7. In view of the above stated position, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order Annexure A-2 is quashed. Money, if already recovered, shall be refunded to the petitioner, within two months. Disposed of. August 24, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.