COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 3304/2001 Pitamber Pandey …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Others …….Respondents Sri Harshwardhan Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Veena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2nd April, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 22.9.1990 and 16.4.2001 contained as Annexure No. VI and VII respectively to the writ petition by which recovery of amount paid in excess to the petitioner was ordered. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher Science/Math in L.T. Grade in the year 1968. He was granted advance increments considering him as Trained B.Sc. 3rd Division in terms of Government Order dated 19.3.1964 contained as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, whereby it was provided that Government would grant advance increments to Science Teachers of the non-Government aided Higher Secondary Schools, appointed in the financial year 1963-64 or to be appointed subsequently. Thereafter, in the year 1989-90, an objection was raised during audit inspection that the petitioner was erroneously granted the advance increments in accordance with the said Government Order and as such the petitioner’s pay scale was wrongly fixed and that on account of this the petitioner is getting more payment. Thereafter recovery of the amount paid in excess to the petitioner was ordered by the concerned authorities vide the impugned orders. Petitioner was neither afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the recovery orders nor any show cause notice was served upon him. 3. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the increments were wrongly granted to the petitioner as he was not B.Sc. 3rd Division. He has passed B.Sc. Supplementary Examination, whereas advance increments were liable to be granted had he been B.Sc. 3rd Division. Admittedly, the petitioner was B.Sc. Supplementary and was not liable to be granted the advance increments. But the petitioner is in no way responsible for the same. 4. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Shyam Babu Verma & Others v. Union of India & Others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521, wherein the petitioners were erroneously given higher pay scale in 1973. The pay scale of the petitioners was reduced in 1984. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since the petitioners received the higher pay scale due to no fault of theirs, it shall not be proper to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to him. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and above legal proposition, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned recovery orders are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh