Si ^•"^fi-^-"" ...•<'*<",<^?\?..sy" ^^•^t^si5>"" ^^^ ^"^ F||^Q »HEHIGH COUSTOF JUmC&TVKE CKHATTISGAEK &T aiLA.sc'aa, W.P.WO. ~(^,^ / 2006 ^ Yashwant Gwal, Aged about 34 years, S/o Sfcri Subhakar Gwal, Instructor, * Govt. Engmeering CoUege, ( R/o Qr.No. G/112 GEC Campus ) Raipur, Dist : Raipur- (C.G.t yeEsus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Higher and Technical Education and Man Power Plaaning Department, Mantralaya at D.K.S. Bfaawan, Raipur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) /"' 2. The Director, Directorate of Tecfanical Education Chbattisgarh, Raipur-(C.G.) ^-'3. The Principal Govt. Engineering CoUege, Raipur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.j WRIT PETITION U/A 226 / 227 OF TH5 CONSTITUTION rTp'Kii AFR, ts> HiGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.1286 of 2006 ^ Petitioner Respondent Vsrsus Yashwant Gwal State of Chhattisgaiti & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDtA (SB : Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Pr^sTt:- 2. 3. 4. Shri S.K. Thomas, Advocate for the petttionar, Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Pane! LawyerfortheState. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on ^"Day ofApril, 2010) Chalfenge in this petition ia tothe ordar (teted 21.02.2086 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Additionat Director, Technteat Education, Directorate, Technteal Education, aihattisgarh, Raipar, whereby higher pay scale ofRs. 4500-125-7000 granted eariia-, has been cancelled. Further challenge is to the order dated 03.03.2006 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Principal, Government Engineering Cotlege, Raipur, whereby the petitioner has been intimated about cancellation of aforesaid pay scate. The facts, in nutshell,which are germane for adjudication of the case, are that the petitioner was working as Instructor, Electrteal Oepartmer* since 17.10.1996 in Govemment Engineering Cellege, Rayur thereafter, by order dated 11.3.2008 he was promcrted to the post of Technical Assistent According to the petNioner on the basis of the ordws passed by the Supreme Court as welt as the State Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), higher pay scale was granted to the workshop Instructors working 'm Government Polytechnics, but the said benefit was not extended to the employees working in Govemment Engineering Colfeges. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitkmer alongwitfi ofriers preferred an original applic^ion being O.A. No. 684/1989 before the Tribunal. After abolition of the Tribunal the said case was transferred to this Court and registered & renuinbered as W.P. (S) No. 299S2005, which is pending consideration. During perKlency of the said petition the impugned orders were passed in iBegal and srbitrary manner. Hence this petition. fc^\ ' fe-^-^. 's; '^ 8. Shri Thomas, feamed counsel appearing for the petifoner subnrits that the impugned order has also been passed wittiout affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and wittiout issuing any shoiw cause notice. The saki act of frie (espnndents is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned counsel further sitimits that the case <rf the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Vidyadhar Thwari v. State of Chhattisgarh & otfiere . Learned counsel further submits that this petition may be disposed of in the sanie tenns. Per eontra, Shri Bhaduri, leamed panel lawyer appearing tor ttie State in support of the impugned order would submit that the amount paid to the petitioner was in excess and, as such, the petitioner has no right to retain the same and in such a sitMation it is not necessary to issue a show cause notice before passing the order impugned. I have heard learned counsel appearing for ttie parties, pemsed the pleadings and the documents appanded thereto. It is admitted fact that the benefit of pay revision to the workshop Instructore of Gowmment Engineering College has been granted not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of tt»e emplo^es. Even, in a similarly sifaiated case, a Single Bencb of ttiis Court in Milan Ram Palwa v. Slate crf Chhatlisgaih & Othera , allowed tto petition of the employee/petttioner on 30-4-2008. ThereagaiRst, tto State Government filed a writ appeat before tiie Division Bendi of this Court (State of Chhattisgarh & Otfms v. Mitan Ram PaBwa & Wiere), whirf» was dismissed by the Division Bench upholdtng the order passed by the Single Beneh, on 20-6-2008. Thus, the judgmwit and order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in Milan Ran Patwa (supra), has attained finality. The Supreme Court in Sahtt) Ram v. State of Haryana am! othere in para 5 has held as under: "5. However, it is not on aceount crf any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the beneRt of higher pay scale was given to hiro but by wrong construction made by the Principal for whidi the appeKart cannot be held to be at fault Under the eircumstances, th® amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant." ' 2006 (l)MPHT 105 (CG) 2 WP(S) 6833/2006.. 3 WANo. 121/2008 4.1?95Supp(U.SCC;20 -"OK1S%£- ^.^^^ "^ '^ '^ 's 'l u f./ '''^S-ys's'feffl 9. 11 Qowri The Supreme Court in P. Tdsidas and othas v. Govemment of A.P. and others , observed that ttie benefit accrued eariier by way of grant of higher pay or revised p^, cannot be taton away as the same ia viotative of Article 14 and 16of the Constitution crf India being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. This Court, in Vjdyadhar Tmrari v. &ate of (aihattisgarh & olhers hos held that for the excess payment, if any, made to ttie petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount receivwl by him might have been used fay adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his salary. Applying the well settled princ^tes of law to ttie facte of the pteswit case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petitions are accordingly allowed in the terms of the order passed m Wttyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e., the impugned orders dated 21.02.20( (Annexure P/5) & 03.03.2006 (Annexure P/6) are hereby quashed. The amount, if any, so deducted be pakl to the petitfonw with simple interest. However, liberty is reserved to ttie respondents, if so advised, to take appropriate steps after complying with the prmciples of natural justice. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge 'AIR2003SC43 12006(1) MPHT 5 (CO)