S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1053/1995 Mrs. Tulsi Naryani Vs. Raj. State Mineral Development Corp., Jaipur Date of order : 12.02.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr. Sandeep Saxena for petitioner. None present for respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent. The prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition for quashing of the order dated 31.1.1995 (Annex.7) as well as order dated 19.01.1995 referred therein and has further claimed arrears of pay w.e.f. 15.4.1992. By the impugned order dated 31.1.1995 (Annex./7), the fixation order of the petitioner dated 15.10.1994 was withdrawn. The submission of the petitioner is that the respondent has again invited option and he has submitted an option for fixing in the revised pay scale, therefore, there is no justification to withdraw the order dated 15.10.1994. Although the respondent has not appeared before the Court, despite grant of one more opportunity on 11th of February 2009. - 2- But a perusal of the reply would reveal that the pay of the petitioner was fixed in the revised pay scale while she was working in the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation. Thereafter, she was absorbed in the Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation, Jaipur (for short'R.S.M.D.C.') The further submission, mentioned in the reply, is that even if the option was again invited then also the petitioner would not be entitled for double fixation in the same pay scale. Alongwith the reply, an earlier fixation in Rajasthan Land Development Corporation has been annexed as Annexure-R/2 in revised pay scale of 1200-2050/-. I have gone through the writ petition and further considered the submissions of the petitioner alongwith the reply filed by the respondent. In my view it is settled position of law that there cannot be a double fixation in the same pay scale. Since, the interim order dated 23.02.1995, it was ordered by this Court that “In the meanwhile, amount if any paid extra by virtue of order dated 15.10.1994 (Annexure/6) shall not be recovered from the salary of the petitioner by the respondents.” - 3- In view of the interim order, the excess amount paid by the respondent was recovered, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that the same shall not be recovered from the petitioner in future. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA),J. Gandhi H-2