IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No.1719 of 2002 Date of decision: 14.7.2008. State of H.P. ....Petitioner -Versus- C.L. Khushu ….Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta,Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. For the Respondent: Mr.Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned Tribunal dated May 16, 2001 passed in O.A. No.67 of 1997. The undisputed facts are that the respondent was working as Principal in Government College, Bilaspur. He appointed one Sh.Chaman Lal as Lecturer (Sociology) on contract basis at a consolidated salary of Rs.1800/- per month. There is no dispute that this appointment was made after taking approval of the prescribed authority. Thereafter, the respondent is alleged to have appointed Shri Chaman Lal on ad hoc basis in the regular scale of pay after Shri Chaman Lal had qualified M.Phil. According to the petitioner-State 2 Sh.Chaman Lal was to be given consolidated pay of Rs.2200/- per month and not the regular scale of pay. The case of the State was that due to this higher scale having been granted to Sh.Chaman Lal by the respondent in violation of the instructions of the Government loss of Rs.81,912/- has been caused to the State Government. An inquiry in terms of Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules was conducted and it was directed that the aforesaid sum of Rs.81,912/- be recovered from the respondent. It would be pertinent to mention that the respondent retired about 10 years back. The respondent challenged this order before the learned Tribunal and the plea taken was that he had allowed the regular scale to Sh.Chaman Lal since Sh.Chaman Lal had duly qualified the M.Phil examination and following the principles of equal pay for equal work. It would be pertinent to mention that it appears that Sh.Chaman Lal’s services as Lecturer were earlier dispensed with and he was reinstated in terms of the order dated 7.9.1993 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.907 of 1993. A direction was given in the said case that the petitioner Chaman Lal should be engaged as Lecturer (Sociology) in the Government College, Bilaspur till the post is filled up on regular basis. The Tribunal has found as a fact that Sh.Chaman Lal, till the date the order was passed by the Tribunal, was continuing on ad hoc basis and was continuing to receive the 3 salary of a regular employee. It was found as a fact that the petitioner Department had taken no steps whatsoever to change the pay scale of Sh.Chaman Lal. No notice had been issued to him that his salary had wrongly been fixed and that he was only entitled to consolidated salary of Rs.2200/- per month. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that though the respondent may have been little irresponsible and negligent in passing the said order but keeping in view the fact that the State had taken no steps to either change the scale of pay of Sh.Chaman Lal or recover the excess amount paid to him, after the retirement of present respondent there is no justification for recovering the amount from the respondent. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding of fact that the respondent was not personally benefited in any manner by passing the order. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the order passed by the respondent was complied with by the State and no action was taken to recover any amount from Shri Chaman Lal, we find that there is no such error in the order of the Tribunal calling for interference while exercising the extra-ordinary writ powers of this Court. The learned Tribunal has taken a pragmatic approach in the matter. We agree with the Tribunal that it would be too harsh to order recovery of the amount from the 4 respondent who retired more than a decade ago. The writ petition is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge July 14, 2008. ( V.K. Ahuja ), PV Judge