IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6044/2008 (OA 2538/99) Date of Decision : May 3, 2010 Smt. Geeta Sharma Petitioner Versus The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. N. S. Shandil, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondent : Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. R. S. Dogra, Advocate, for the respondent. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “1. That the order no. 63-9/99-TDC(ADMN) Dated 24.5.1999, and subsequent refixation vide Office Order No. 63-9/99-TDC (Admn.) Dated 27.7.1999, Annexures-A1 & A-2 respectively, whereby the respondent on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee has reduced the pay scales of the applicant from Rs. 4020-6200 to Rs. 3120-5160 and subsequent re-fixation in the reduced scale as on 1.6.96, may kindly be set aside and quashed. 2. That any other order issued by the respondent in consequence of Annexures A-1 & A-2 regarding Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 refixation and recovery, in respect of the applicant may kindly be set aside and quashed. 3. That the respondents may be directed, in the alternative, to fix the salary of the applicant in view of F.R. 23. 4. That the respondent may be restrained permanently to recover the excess amount paid to the applicant. 5. That the record of the case may kindly be called for in the interest of justice. 6. That the application may kindly be allowed with costs. 7. That any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner would be content if the excess amount disbursed to her is directed not to be recovered. 3. The petitioner was working as a clerk/guide. She was drawing pay scale of Rs. 1200-2130. However w.e.f. 1.1.1996 the same was revised to Rs. 4020-6200. The respondent-Corporation adopted the Himachal Pradesh Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1996 notified on 20.1.1998. The said Rules contain a schedule providing for a general conversion of pre-revised scale to revised scale. The Rules were amended and notified on 1.9.1998. There is no challenge to these Rules or the amendment. 4. As a consequence of application of the Rules and the Schedule, petitioner’s pay scale had to be corrected and refixed at 3 Rs. 3120 – 5160 w.e.f. 1.6.1996. The respondent has sought to recover the excess amount disbursed to the petitioner in terms of office order dated 24.5.1999 (Annexure A/1). There is no dispute that payments were made in terms of higher pay scale w.e.f. 1.6.1996 up to 1.9.1998. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the same comes to Rs. 14,000/-. It also cannot be disputed that petitioner had no role in fixation of her higher pay scale. The same was refixed as a consequence of the adoption and/or amendment of the Rules. The amount in question has yet not been recovered from the petitioner. 5. This Court in Vinod Walia versus State of H.P. and others, 2009 (1) Shim. LC 399 has held as under: “13. It is not in dispute that the audit objection and the consequential Governmental action to revise and re- fix the pay is in accordance with Rules. The challenge now, is only with regard to the recovery of the dues already released to him. 14. The petitioner had continuously received the said benefit. It is not that he was associated with the revision of his pay-scale to gain monetary benefits and advantage. The error in interpreting and applying the Rules was that of the State and not the petitioner. The decision was taken to confer benefit to the employees of the State at the highest level in consultation with Finance Department. 15. The total amount involved is Rs. 26,000/-. The petitioner has discharged his duties to the satisfaction of all and has now retired. 4 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, since the amount was received by the petitioner without any fault on his part, it would be only just, fair and proper that the same be not recovered from him. While taking this view, I am supported by the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Shyam Babu Verma and others v. Union of India and others, 1994 (2) SCC 521, Purshotam Lal Das and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2006 (11) SCC 492 and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Suppl SCC 18. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, Memo dated 2.9.1996 (Annexure P-VIII) is quashed. The State shall not effect recovery of the dues already paid to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 26,000/-, as prayed for in the petition.” 6. Thus keeping in view the attending circumstances it is directed that recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner, as is sought to be recovered in terms of Annexure-A/1, shall not be made. 7. With the aforesaid observations the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 3, 2010 (PK)