CWP(T) No. 2746/2008 (OA 2035/95) 3.6.2009 Present: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. The petitioner was serving as a conductor with the respondents. His pay was erroneously fixed in the senior scale of Rs. 1200-2100. The respondents having discovered the same issued an order reducing his pay scale. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before this Court in terms of Civil Writ Petition No. 1572 of 1993, titled Ramesh Dogra & others versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation, & another, which stood allowed in terms of order dated 5.4.1994 (Annexure A-1). Consequently vide office order dated 30.6.1994 (Annexure A-2) the respondents passed an order fixing the petitioner’s pay in terms of order dated 12.6.1991. However, vide memorandum dated 4.8.1994 (Annexure A-3) petitioner was issued a show cause notice, calling upon him to show cause as to why, keeping in view the adverse entries existing in his service record, the senior scale be not withdrawn w.e.f. 1.1.1986 the date from which it was erroneously fixed and released to him. Petitioner responded to the same and vide orders dated 12.1.1995 (Annexure A-7) his pay scale was withdrawn. His representation was also rejected vide Annexure A-6. -2- That there were adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner is not in dispute. The respondents erroneously fixed and disbursed higher pay scale to the petitioner to which he was not entitled to in accordance with rules. In the present case the recoveries are being effected from the date when the amount was erroneously released in favour of the petitioner. His service record was not satisfactory, hence action was taken by the respondents. That the petitioner is otherwise not entitled to senior scale is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has prayed that the amount erroneously received by the petitioner between 1986 up to 1995 be not recovered. In my considered view, keeping in view the service record of the petitioner which is not satisfactory, no interference is warranted. Present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. June 3, 2009 (PK)