CF0000281086 (AJ ,P^)H^/^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JAB, AEPENDIX - A Form - I (See Rule 4) APPLICATION U/S 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE.TRIBUNALACT,1985 O.A.No. \^y Filed on -^o f -'l^' TITLE OF THE CASE SHANKAR LAL KESHARWANI aged about 61 years, S/o Shri S.R. Kesharwani R/o Gond Para (By the side of Gurudwara) BILASPUR (M.P.) Retired Reader in Mechanical Engineering Govt. Engineering College BILASPUR (M.P.). VER S U S APPLICANT 1.. State of M.P. Through : The Secretary to the Govt. of M.P. Manpower Planning Department Vallabh Bhawan BHOPAL (M.P.). 2. Director of Technical Education Satpuda Bhavan BHOPAL (M.P.). 3• Principal Govt. Engineering College BILASPUR (M.P.). 4. Accountant General Madhya Pradesh Accounts and Claims (Lekha Avam Haquedari) Moti Mahal GWALIOR (M.P.). 5. Joint Director of Treasuries and Accounts Sscelvtd Copy of Petltion W;th AnnexS^ASPUR (M. P . ) &^$£^ T ^ o^- CIERK i/k^.-.. O/o. Advo^ste&^ \ M. P. iA§At6/ RESPONDENTS contd...ii @gi8»ai»s««<, »ww ^ C-78 wrar^iT^ ^wT^znzrra^, tp-alwKo, Rlriw^ !^.(p. CS) 1^3^- ^ an^?T q^q»(>j<ti^6|<£{) ^200^ 3?T^tT^5TR^J4) ^iT3n^5T9RTO S;?cffWr^lflcrOT^^T BB: HOrBLE SHRi MANINDR^ 24.02.2010 Shri Viaay ParLdey, couns^ Shri. Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. G\ respondents. Heard. 2. This petition is dn'ecte^ Annexure A/3, order dated 4.3.^ 20.11.1995, Annexure A/6. Th^ his pay lixation order, whereby ia revised pay-scale w.e.f. 1.1,1< fixed as 1.1.1987. As a consl recoveiy of Rs. 15.640/ - has als^ io. so far as reUef, as claiined io. the saaie is not being pressed. I-i cpi<iIc>)<Tlvi WT^T^"^St xRi^i^ ^ 3lRl<1 3fr^"^T MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. 1 for Uie petitioner. wemnient Advocate fbr the State / agaiast order dated 4.11.1989, 995, Annexure A/5 mid order dated petitioner is aggrieved by chao.ge io. ^vhile tixing fhe pay of the petitioner 586, fhe date of uicreiiient has been squence of chao.ge of pay iixation, been ordered, 3, At fhe outset, learued co4nsel for tlie petitioner submits tiiat :>ara 9.1 ofthe petition is conceraed, e argues fhat raitiatly pay fixatiou of tlie petitiouer ia the revised p^y-scale was done vide pay fixation order dated 16.1.1990, Annexu^e A/4. From fhat pay fixation, it is clear that tlie date of in.crem.eE|t was fixed as 9.2.1986. However, later on, fhe earlier pay fixati] 4.3.1995, Aunexure A/5, wh\ altered the date of Hicreinent d^ 1.1.1987. LeaiTied counsel for 1 pn was chaiiged vide order dated ?reby, fhe respoudents arbitrarily tiie petitioner and it was fixed as ^he petitioner subniits th.at once pay n ^ucT^i^irt^, tPTi1<<i<i<»,Rlril^y^ WT^T^^TT^ OT^tT^rRi^icb ^qT3TT^^T^^icb 3TT^9T ^SSf! (ijc|i^<s|<£;) ^20 S^TTSf? ^lf^T 3H^^T bden fixation was m.ade on 16.1.1t chaage th.e saaie. He furth.er| his date of iricrement has per uie provisions contaiaed the uext in.creriieiit of a Tea<t revised scale ui accoidao.ee wl he would have drawn his existing scale. It is subinitted| pay-scale in the year l^ consideration aiid fhere wa$ respoadents to alter fhe saai^ fhat assumiag thiough not wrongly inade, it was not result of aay fraud or in| petitiouer, Consequently, be made froni tiie petitioner. undler sai|d 4. Replyiiig the above respondents submits fhat the| iii fhe revised pay-scale stric^ly formula. Accordio.g to hun, i|ii1 in tlie revised AJ.C.T.E, pay-| he was given benefit of stepp|n^ basic was j5xed at Rs.3825/ benefit of steppiag up as a re; cpl<4lo<I1lT1 +11+1oV^'(^^ <<f^l^$l<< ^ 3<R|+1 OT^^T p90, respondents had no aufhority to [submits tliat right froia fh.e beguiniag, 9m of Febniaiy every year aad as |iii the pay lixation foraiula, Clause 3, ^her whose psiy has been fsxed iii uie [ih Riile- II shall be graated on ttie date Ijicreraent, had lie continued in tiie tiiat while fixiag flie pay ia tiie revised |90, fhiis formixla was taken into no justification on thie part of fhe after 5 years. Further submission is fhat fhe earlier pay tlxation was fault of fhe petitioner nor was the jsrepresentation on th.e part of fhe no circumstaace any recoveiy could ad^iitting tlle contention, learaed counsel for the petitioner is entiUed to fixation of pay ia accordance witii tlie pay fixation i|iitially when petitioner's pay was fixed -^cale of Rs.3700-5700 w.e.f. 1.1.1986, ^|ng up as a result ofbunchiag and his In his submission, m cases where ^ult of biuichuig is graated, th.e date of ^. "w^ 1C-78 ^3wr;^Trai^T, tp-al^-K?, Rlril^y^ 'TFI^T^^TT^ 3TT^9Tira^(<3^fg6R[) ^20 3n^^T^rRiviich ^TTW^^Tfb^Jcb §^TTWr;Hl^T3n^^T 3 cpi<i[c')<Tlri ^i+ioV^'fc^l xRi^i<< f5 3lRl+l 3TT^5T iiicremeiit would be 12 nicjnfhs alter fhe qualLfying service with refereuce to the date of rev]|sion of pay scale. In his submission, benefit of steppnig up ha\| nicreinent could not be clai^^d as it would violate fhe pay fixation fonnula. 5. I have heard learaedl perused the record. iag been given, the origisial date of counsel for tlie parties at lengfh and elaborate provision as to tlie 6. Pay fixation fonnula pl^.ced on record as Annexure A/2 raakes Imaaner ia which, the pay ia the rcvised pay-scale shaU be fixed. Cl^use 3 of Annexure 2 appeuded to the pay fixation fonnula provide^ be graa&ted oa the iaacremeait, had he co: in. following terms. "3. The siext iaiorem^at of a teacher wfaose pay has beea fixed isi the revised slcale isi accordaxice with Rule-II sliall date he would have drawa his itisaued in the existii&g scale. Provided tliat isji cases wlxere the pay of a teacher is stepped iip m termsjof the Note iisider Rule-II, the siext liicremesit sliall b^ qiiaElfyiiig serviee of iip of ttie paj isi the isi the case of persoaa| the scale for granted oa the completioa of 12 months from the date of steppiag revised scale. Provided further tliat » wlao had been drawiag maximum of 22ioye thaa a year as oa 1.1.1986 the b>; ^wf ^iqioq, tP-al^l<l<»,Rlril^f^ *il<1C91 ^TT^ 3TI^^Tq)TR^icb H3?T3TT^^Tri3^icb" 3TT^?T tRq»(<3^fg^[) ^20 g^iT^R^rf^ran^^T 4- ssext isicremesit isi tUe revised scale shall be allowed osi 1.1.1986W. A perusal of fhe afore^ of iricrenient upon revision m.ariner : a. Where pay has accordaiice witb Rule-II, the date, teacher would have drsjwn fhe existmg scale. b, In case, where tlie Note under Rule-II, fhe tiex conipletion of qualtfyiiig steppiag up ofth.e pay iii fh.e| c, In case ofperso4s, the existiag scale for niore increment in fhe revised scajle ^aid provision woxild show that fixation ^f pay-scale shall be done in. foUowing ^>een fixed in fhe rcvised pay-scale ia |next iacrement shatl be graiited on the his tacreinent, had he contmued ta steppijag 7. From ftie aiialysis of case, where benefit of of pay iii the revised pay-i not be relevaat date for shatl be granted on fhe m.onfh.s froni flie date sc^ie gra4t of stepjping cpKiIcxTli +ii+ioV^rfe^£l^RI^IN! ^3lf^T3II^?r p^y sefvice of a teacher is stepped up ia terras of ^iext uicreinent shatl be granted on fhe of 12 monfhs from the date of Irevised scale. LJLS, who had been drawiag niaximuni of |thaa a year as on 1.1.1986, fhe next shall be aUowed on 1.1.1986. tljie aforesaid provision, it is clear fhat ia up is granted at the time offixation ^ fhe origiaal date of iucrement would of uicreinent, but fhe uext iricrciiient c|onipletion of qualifyuig service of 12 up of fhe pay in. fhie revised scale. ":^"-» 1t ., Xt-HC-78 ^3:5;ET;;ZTraT^T, t?-alwi<»,RlriH^ *11*IWI ^^l^ 3TT^9T traq? ('j^fg^) W120 3?T^^TWR^icb ^TT 31T^^TfFRt^ ?^TTW^rfl?T3T1^^T 5 8. A perusal of iiiitial pay 16.1.1990, Annexure A/4 eiiiolunieiits iii the pre-revise< 20% of fhe basic pay, it we petitioner was ttien given buuchiag aad his pay was clearly shows th.at tiie petitio steppnig up, In such a sitiis could not be retaiaed, but fhe provision coiitamed m Rule foiTaula i.e, w,e.f. the date afte date of steppnig up of fhe pay t later ori, noticed by fhe resy iiicreinent was chaaged froni 9. In the opiaion of fhis respondents caanot be terraed fixation formula. fijcation respondei|i.ts 9/ However, ia so far as coucenied, fhe saiae is iUegal uot fhe case of the based ou aay fraud or petitioner. In tliis view of the to fhe petitioner, could not be respoudents in. ordermg recov' cpi<<[w<nvi <ii<ic^v:^'fc^i ^Ri^i^ ^? 3iKl*l 3TT^'5T order of fhe petitioner done on sl|]ows that fhough the petitioner's p. pay-scale was Rs.2960/-, addmg [s brought up to Rs.3280/-. The beijiefit of steppiag up as a result of fu|rther enhanced to Rs.3825/-. This |ner was recipient of fhe benefit of l.tion, thLe ongmal date of iacrement |ncrement was to be given as per fh-e ^ of Anaexure A/2 of pay fixation |r conipletion of 12 niontiis froni fhe ifa fhe revised scale, This niistake was jondents aiid fherefore, tlie date of J2.1986to 1.1.1987. Court, this action on fhe part of as illegal or m violation of fhe pay |order Annexure A/6 of recovery is biid not sustamable under law. It is that ftie earlier pay fixation was mis|representation on flie part of fhe ijaatter, fhe aiaount akeady been paid t-ecovered. As such, fhe action of fhe 4iy ofRs.15,640/-, is declared illegal C-78 a. ^3wr'r<<ioi««,tpTTI<«<i<o, R|«my<< TR^T^^TT^ 3n^5T^Tf^1TO ^TSTT 3TT^^T3^TR) ^ •tf' 9. 3TT^?T tRtp ((jc|ij6|<g{) ^20 g^rTWf^fln 3n^5T and tlie same is set aside. T| of th.is amount, if already re<| v^ith. the mterest at tlie ratei date of recovery till the dat^ partly allowed. 10. No order as to costs. cpl<<Fo<nT1 <11+1C>>V^fI^^I ^Rrl^l^ ^? 3lRl*l 3TT^^T hie petitioner shall be entitled to refaud •overed from his pay/ retrial dues along > prevalent from time to time from ftie of refund. The petition is accordmgly Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude