M Petitloner HiGHCOURTOFCHHATTJSGARH:BSLASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 6327 of2008 B.P. Kurre, S/o Late Lakhi Ram Kurre, 53 years, Occupation Retired Principai, R/o Viliage Tingipur, Biock Baloda, Distrsct Janjgir-Champa (CG). "^ Versus Respondents 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Scheduied Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Deveiopment, Korba (CG). 3 Ths Commissioner, ST & SC Development Department, Raipur (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constltution of india) (SB : Hon'bleShri Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J.) Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsei for the petltioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on thls25th day of February, 2009) With the consent of learned counsei appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finaiiy. 2) in this petition, a question of iaw invoived is whether the emptoyee of the State Govemment is entitled to benefits of initial pay in the time scaSe of higher post on being appointed to another post carrylng dytles and responsibliities of greater importance in accordance with the Ruie 22-D of th-e M.P. Fundamentai Ruies (forshort "FR^. . 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Head Master was promoted to the post of Lecturer carrying higher responsibiiity. He was initiaSly granted benefits under FR 22-D. He retired from service on 31-5-2008 after attalning the age of superannuation. Subsequently, by order dated 21-7-2008 (Annexure P/1) payment of higher post carrying higher responsibilsty was wlthdrawn in order to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner. Leamed counsei ^ Gowri submits that the FR are framed by the Secretary of State In Councii under Section 96-B of the Government ofindia Act, inciuding the orders issued by the Secretary of State, Government of india and Auditor-Generai and the Supplementary Rules framed by the local Government which are applicabie to the service conditions of govemment empioyees and have attained the status of ruies framed under Articie 309 of the Constitution of india. Thus, FR cannot be superceded by any executive instructions. Learned counsel piaced reilance upon the decision ofthis Court in Chinta Mani Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (W.P.No.4797 of 2004) dedded on 27-3-2008 wherein this very issue was under consideration before this Court and prays for simiiar order. Learned counsei appearing for the State submits that the issue of iaw is no ionger res mtegra as settled by this court In Chinta Mani Gupta (supra),. 4) In view of the foregoing, the petitson Is aliowed and the order dated 21-7-2008 (Annexure P/1) directing recover^ of the excess paynnent is quashed. !n case the amount has been recovered, the same shalJ be refunded back to the petltioner wlth simple interest. Accordlngiy, the petitloner Is entitied to benefits of FR 22-D. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge