IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 7392 of 2008 Date of decision: 01.09.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Jaswant Singh. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG, for respondents No. 1 to 3. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v): “7(i) That the orders dated 4.10.2000 vide Annexure A-2, reducing the basic pay of the applicant of Rs. 3200/- to Rs. 2925/- w.e.f. 6.6.1990 onwards may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That the respondents 1 and 2 may be directed to restore the pay of the applicant at Rs. 3200/- w.e.f. 6.6.1990 and thereafter as a result of the quashing of Annexure A-2 dated 4.10.2000 with all consequential benefits forthwith. (iii) That the respondents may be estopped from effecting any recovery from the pay/salary etc. of the applicant as a result of reduction of basic pay as per orders dated 4.10.2000 (A-2) forthwith. (iv) That the cut off date i.e. 1.1.1993 as mentioned in the orders dated 18.8.1995(A-3), which discriminates the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... applicant and which denies the entitlement of the applicant for pay-fixation on the basis of the revised/new master scales, merely on the basis of the date of his appointment, vis-a-vis the entitlement of the respondent No. 4 in getting his pay fixed in the revised new master scales, may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary, malafide and thus unconstitutional. (v) That the respondents may be directed to fix the pay to restore the pay of the applicant at Rs. 3200/- w.e.f. 6.6.1990, which was determined on the basis of the revised/new master scale on 4.4.1997 (A-1), irrespective of the date of his appointment alike the respondent No. 4 forthwith.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 6: “6. That in reply to this para it is again submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the army on 23.09.1963 and was discharged on 30.09.1984, therefore he has completed 21 years and seven days in the military service. The applicant was appointed as lecturer in History on 06.06.1990 in civil department. It is further submitted that the pay of the applicant was wrongly fixed at Rs. 3200/- on 06.06.1990 after giving him the benefit of approved military service. The appointment of the applicant was in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200/-. It is pertinent to submit here that the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh vide its letter dated 04.10.2000 has again fixed the salary of the applicant by making correct after counting 21 years of military service and fixed his pay at Rs. 2925/- instead of Rs. 3200/-. Therefore, the overpayment made to the applicant has been ordered to be recovered. The replying respondent has to deal with hundreds of such cases and if some mistake is detected the same has to be rectified immediately. The applicant has not been discriminated in any way and the overpayment received by the applicant has rightly been ordered to be recovered, hence the original application is liable to he dismissed straightaway.” 3. Insofar as prayers (i) to (iii) and (v) are concerned it would be seen that vide letter dated 04.04.1997, Annexure A-1, pay of the petitioner, as on 06.06.1990, was fixed at ` 3200/- under the provisions of Demobilized Armed Forces (Reservation of Vacancies) ...3... Rules, 1972, and Finance Department letters dated 18.06.1986 and 02.08.1983. However, later on vide letter dated 04.10.2000, Annexure A-2, his pay was reduced to ` 2925/-, but without any notice. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner carried the matter to the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which, on abolition of the said Tribunal, has been transferred to this Court and registered as CWP(T) No. 7392 of 2008. Operation of the impugned order dated 04.10.2000, Annexure A-2, was stayed by the Tribunal vide order dated 21.03.2001. 5. The learned vice counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has since retired from service in the year 2002. 6. Since pay of the petitioner was reduced vide the impugned order dated 04.10.2000, Annexure A-2, without any notice to him, the same cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. However, it shall be open to respondents No. 1 to 3 to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law, if so advised. 7. As far as prayer (iv) is concerned, the grievance of the petitioner in that regard shall be considered by respondents No. 1 and 2/competent authority in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 94, for which the petitioner shall make an appropriate representation supported by documents to respondents ...4... No. 1 and 2/competent authority alongwith copy of this judgment within a month from today, who shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within further three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 8. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 1st September, 2011 (virender)