IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4392/2008 (OA 1103/97) Date of Decision : April 22, 2009 Sh. J.K. Sirkek Petitioner Versus The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Lokendar Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner was working as Deputy General Manager with the respondent. Vide orders dated 22.3.1990 (Annexure A-2) his pay was fixed at Rs. 5250. This was in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-6300. Vide office order dated 19.5.1992 (Annexure A-3) his pay was again revised and fixed at Rs. 5750. In terms of both the annexures the revision was to be effected w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The arrears were disbursed to the petitioner after compliance of all codal formalities. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 However, vide office order dated 30.9.1993 (Annexure A-4) his pay was re-fixed at Rs. 4375/- w.e.f. 2.1.1987. Importantly this was done behind the petitioner’s back. The matter did not rest there and in terms of order dated 18/28.2.1994 the petitioner’s pay was further re-fixed to be Rs. 4625/- w.e.f. 2.1.1987. Why the same was done was also not explained to the petitioner. No hearing was afforded before passing of the order. Having learnt about the same the petitioner made a representation (Annexure A-6) which was replied by the Accounts Officer in terms of letter dated 11.5.1994 (Annexure A-7) asking the petitioner to approach the Board which the petitioner promptly did in terms of his letter dated 4.8.1995 (Annexure A-8). The petitioner continued to further represent in terms of Annexure A-13, Annexure A-11 and Annexure A-10. But regretfully no decision was taken on the same. The respondents however issued an order dated 30.9.1994 seeking recovery of the outstanding dues. Same is reproduced as under: “Please refer to this office order No. HPSEB/F&A/PG/A-3/93-6764-66 dated 30.9.93 vide which the pay of the above named officer has been re- fixed. You are requested to intimate amount of over payment made to the officer, so that the same is recovered from his outstanding dues.” 3 The respondents have explained the circumstance justifying the revision in the salary fixed by them. That the salary was rightly affixed by the respondents vide Annexure A-4 and Annexure A-5 is not in dispute. The total amount disbursed to the petitioner in excess of his entitlement w.e.f. 1.1.1986 recovery of which is sought is Rs. 37,687/-. It is a matter of record that at no point of time petitioner had anything to do with the issuance of office order Annexure A-2 or Annexure A-3. The same was done, without the petitioner’s involvement, by the respondents themselves, apparently due to wrong interpretation of various orders issued by the Board/Government from time to time. It was only when it was discovered that the petitioner had been wrongly dispersed the aforesaid amount, remedial measures were taken by the respondents. The amount had been dispersed to the petitioner after a decision had been taken in consultation with the Finance Department of the respondent/Board. Petitioner undoubtedly cannot be faulted for the erroneous fixation of the pay and release of the same. The present petition was filed on 13.6.1997 when the recovery of the aforesaid amount was stayed. The petitioner has since retired. 4 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 advantages. The error in interpreting and applying the Rules was that of the officers of the respondent- Board. The amount involved is Rs. 37,687/-. The petitioner has discharged his duties to the satisfaction of all. 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 & others versus Union of India & others, (1994) 2 SCC 521; Purshotam Lal Das & others versus State of Bihar & Others (2006) 11 SCC 492 and Sahib Ram versus State of Haryana (1995) Supp 1 SCC 18. During the pendency of the petition the aforesaid amount was recovered from the petitioner’s gratuity. As such the respondents are directed to release the same immediately. With the aforesaid observations the present petition is disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 22, 2009 (PK)