1 934 wp 971.97.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 971 OF 1997 Om Prakash Narang ..Petitioner. Vs. The Director General & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Kumar for Respondents. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 24/02/2011. PC: 1 The only relief that is claimed by the Petitioner is that the difference of wages between the wages payable to the post of Pradhan Yantrik and Yantrik should not be recovered from the Petitioner. Admittedly, by an order dated 9th February, 1994, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Pradhan Yantrik with effect from 04.02.1992 but he was given wages of the post of Pradhan Yantrik from 12.01.1994. It was discovered by the Department subsequently that the promotion to the Petitioner has been wrongly given, therefore, an order was made on 05.01.1995 reverting the Petitioner to the post of Yantrik and an order was made for recovery of the difference in salary. The submission of the Petitioner relying on judgment of the Supreme 2 934 wp 971.97.doc Court in the case Shyam Babu Verma and Others Vs. Union of India and others, (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 521, that as the Petitioner has actually worked in the post of Pradhan Yantrik from 12.01.1994 till 05.01.1995 and he has been paid wages for working in that post which were payable to a person working in the post of Pradhan Yantrik, no recovery should be made from him as his promotion and reversion was for no fault of his. He relies on the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Shyam Babu Verma and others. We have heard the learned counsel for the Respondents. The facts are not in dispute. In paragraph no.11 of judgment of the Supreme Court in Shyam Babu Verma and others (supra), the Supreme court observed thus: “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 3 934 wp 971.97.doc 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.” 2 In this case also, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Pradhan Yantrik for no fault of his he also came to be reverted for no fault of his, he has actually worked in the post of Pradhan Yantrik during the period from 12.01.1994 to 05.01.1995. The case of the Petitioner is thus covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shyam Babu Verma and others case and therefore, in our opinion, Petitioner is entitled to relief that he claims in the Petition. 3 Rule in the petition is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c). 4 No order as to costs. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (K.K.Tated, J.)