3 z IN mE HON'BLE STATE ADMH.'IRIBUNAL BSNCH RAIPOR •"\.. O.A.NO. 2001 ^..^. ^^^^ !wa?to^3^ l!"'£k"-t^^-....^ •^'' f,' BBTWEER >.:".- fWt,ffsf, E SMi'SM. ^ E APH.ICANT - T.R. Vwma s/o Shrl Kallndar Varnia Lecturer Oovt.Hr.secondary School Oondl Lohara Durg Qihattlsgarh. A N D NON-APH.IGANTS - <l) (2) (3) (4) Govt.OE H.P. Through seerstary, Hlnistry ef Baucatloa Oppartinait, Vldhan salrtia Bhawan, Bhopal .(M.P.) sovt.of Chhattlsgarh Tte-ough the Secretary, tUnlatry of ^chool Bducatlwi Ralpur (C.s.). Ptreetor o£ Ptibllc Instructlons CoBamissl<a»er School Education,BHOpa (W.P.) jolnt Blreetor,g?^T e)yi<ti> tteaavvy and Aecounts, RAIPt®(C.G.). $t5iw?rarl (5) R-laaipal. Ocwt.HjLgher Seeondary School. Dondi Lohara, Olatt.DUao (G.s.). APBLICATIC®ONDER SECTTCTt 19 09 tftS STATE ADMraiSTOATIVB TRI3UNW. ACT 1985. (l) RBrtlealars of the Applleant - AS sfcated above. (2^ Partieulaes of Respon<lent3 - As stated abov® contd...2 lini <\ HIGH GCrtJRt OF CHMATTISGARH ? BILASPUR SinaleBench: Hon'bleShri ManindraWohanShriyastaya, J. Bifi IKIRI vss^m- ili PET1TIONER: RESPONDEMTS: WntPetition(StNo.3628/2Q05 T.R.Verma Versus Govt. of M.P. and Others Present:.;'l/ : '': ,. ;'• •1 .; . ; • •• ; •• :••-••. :' : '• ••" ••.; ' . / Shri R;S,Baghel,counselfQrthepetiti6ner. ShriChandreshShrivastaya,PanelLawyerfortheState/respondents. 6RALORDER (Passed on 29th June,2010) With the cpnsent of learned counsel for the parties, the mattens heard :finally.'•;._,' !- • ,, -'. :.. : . • ;::,-. 1 . <2)ThJspetitionhasbeenfiledbytheRetitioneraggrieyedb^th8actionof the respondents whereby the benefi):s^ tsi adsance ilicrements under Funagrnentel Rute 22-D gtanted 3at^8]tim^of^ motion as l..ecturer, has been^^ withdrawmandrecbveryc^^ess^^menSctfsalarytetheto p ttas been maclefromtHe petitiorier. \ @) Case ofthe petitioner jsthatwhitehewaswprkingasMeadMaster.he wasprQimotedtothepostofLecturervidebFderdated29-08-1985(AnnexureA- 4).Thereafter,thepefflioneFwasgrantedbenefitoftwoadyanceincrement&Jn /»•:•• • • ' '• • -. . - •. .-. ^- '..- ' • • .. . • •'. "• • . •.•.•:-. ••'•.-...••••••••:••..••-•'••.—.. ••': . •• . \ -;-; :..'.. '•.•'' • . ' .'.•'•":- view oftheprovisjons coritained in Fundamental^Ryles 22-D.t.ater on, payM the petitioner was revised and the benefit of two acfvance increments was withdrawn in the year 1998. This led to recovery of Rs.22;898/- from the petifioner., ,, .. . ; .:1'::: •:•:.,•- ! : .; :::..':: ' '•...•'; i l li't 1'^l3 •i;"i.: -z- Em- r (4) Learried eoynsel for the petitioner submits tKat the aforesaid action of withdrawing the benefit Qf-Fundamental Rules 22-D in the fjxation of pay upon promotJonasLectyr®rafter10years,isclearlyil)egalandarbitrary.ltisfurther submitted that af the time of promotion as l..ecturer, concemed^authorities takingapartieularviewwithregard-toapplicabilitybfFun(:lamenta|Rules22-& decided to granf benefltvof the.same to the petitioner and accordingly, two advanee inerements were granted. It is submitted that the petjtioner did not make any misrepresentation nor playsd any fraud and the brder for grant 6f benefit oftwoadvariee incremente under Fundamental Rules22-Dwaspassed after due consideraticin and^xamination ofthe case Ofthe petitioner. Further, even -if it is, it was found that ttie said bsnefit was wrongly granted t6 the pefitipner, whatever has already been paid to the petjtiQner, could not be recovered. (5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitionerwas notentitledforgrantofbehefitoftwo advance incremente under Rundamental Rules 22-D and thesaid benefltwas erroneousiy granted t& the petitioner. Later on, upon ^xamingtion,^ it was reyealed that the benefit pf Fundamental Rules22-DwaswronglygrantedtothepetitJonerbeGausehewas promoted to the pc^ 6f Lecturer in tUe year 1998 and the said benefjt ^s granted vide policy ciecisipn faken by the Goyernment which is effective from 01/04-07-2000 Oftnnexure A-9). (6) Fromthe facte and circumstances and the pleadingon^record, it js clear thatthepetitionerwaspromotedtothepostpfLectureranclthereafterhewas granted the benefit of two advance incremehts by applying flie provisions contained in Fundamental Rules22-D. ItisnotthecaseoftherespCindentsthat the said Benefit granted to tKe petitioner;was an outeoms of any 1raud, s..^ •a». ^'?'>j .'L,-'<>-.-^ llati.l. !i ?ii i^umane t: :i ^ "^" ^ misrepresentation made by the petitiQner. Respondents have also not demonstrated that the benefit was grahted to the petitioner, even thoygh, it was not at all permissible under the law and the petitioner accepted knowing fully well that the same was not permissible under the law. On the contrary, a perusal of cireular of the State Goyt. issuedon 01/04-07-2000 (Annexyre 9) shows that later on, the State Govt. also clarified this aspect and ordered for grant of benefit 6f Fundamental Rule 22-D in the matter of promotion from the postofHeadMastertothepostofLecturer.ltisthusclearthatthehfl/oadvance incrementwasgrantedtothepefitioneronrespondents'ownunderstandingand interpretation of the provisions. Even assuming that the petitioner was erroneously grantedthe benefit oftwo advance increments under Fundamental Rule 22-D, in the absence of their being any fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner.whatever has already been paid, could not be recovered from the petitioner as has been he!d by the Suprenie Gourt in the cases of Sanib Ram Vs. State of Haiyana& Othes's,1995 (1) S.LJ. ^151 (SC) anci Shyambabu Veniiaan^OthersVs.UniQnoflndiaandOthers, (1994)2 SCC 521. (7) Iri the r@^lt,the petitjoh is/altowed. Consequently, the recovery made from the peti^ner is deeiared il|egal^and the same is hereby set aside. The amountof Rs.22.898/- recoveredfrom thepetitioner shallberefundedtohim along with simple interest @6% per annurn from the date of recovery till payment. : : !-~—- Sd/- ManindEa Mohan Shrrvastava Judge ^ "^. 'i lli.ilii!-.,!:.