IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP (T) No.4181 of 2008 (OA No.261/1997) with CWP (T) No.4182 of 2008 (OA No.262/2007) Date of Decision: 23rd March, 2009 1. CWP (T) No.4181 of 2008 Madan Lal Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another Respondents 2. CWP (T) No.4182 of 2008 Rattan Singh Petitioner Versus HRTC and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioners: Mr. K.D.Shreedhar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Both the petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment for the reason that the facts and question of law are similar. However, facts of CWP (T) No.4181 of 2008 are being referred to. The petitioner was employed with the respondent- Corporation on 2.10.1974. With the passage of time his pay scale was revised. He was awarded Senior scale of Rs.1200 – 2100. The same was done in terms of order dated 12.6.1991, made applicable with effect from Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 1.1.1986. On such revision of his pay scale the arrears were also released to him. Suddenly, on 9.3.1993 the respondent withdrew the said scale. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner alongwith others approached this Court and vide order 5.4.1994 in CWP No.1572 of 1993, titled as Ramesh Dogra and others vs. H.R.T.C., a Division Bench of this Court quashed the order of withdrawal of the pay scale dated 9.3.1993 on the ground that the petitioners had not been afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity and hence the order of withdrawal being in violation of principles of natural justice was held to be illegal. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the respondent issued another order dated 30.6.1994 reviving the order dated 12.6.1991 and in effect again fixing the senior scale. However, vide memorandum dated 4.8.1994 (Annexure A-3), petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the pay scale be not revised and down-graded as there were adverse entries existing in his personal record which disentitled him for the higher pay scale. Recovery of the amount already paid was also sought to be effected. Petitioner replied to the same on 23.11.1994, by taking a plea that the grant of Senior scale was not subject to any other condition and the same could not be treated at par with promotion and in the absence of any DPC meeting to determine the eligibility and entitlement the senior scale could not be disallowed. The respondent, however, vide order dated 11.2.1991 revised and down graded the pay scale and pursuant thereto, in terms of memo dated 12.1.1995 (Annexure A-6) recovery was sought to be effected from the employees including the petitioner. 3 The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) That the memos dated January 12, 1995 (Annexures A-6 and A-7) may be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondent-Corporation may be directed to continue giving to the applicant the senior scale with effect from January 01, 1986 alongwith arrears of salary for the period the said scale was not given. The respondents may also be directed not to make any recovery from the salary of the applicant. The pay-scale of the petitioners is fixed in accordance with the governmental instructions dated 23.9.1991 (Annexure R-1). The employees who had rendered five years of service and had no adverse entries in their ACRs, only are eligible for being considered for senior scale. In the present cases, the petitioners have not disputed that there were adverse entries existing against them and certain penalties had also been imposed against them by the department. The governmental instructions have not been assailed. The petitioners are governed by them. In this view of the matter, the petitioners’ contention that they are entitled to senior scale is untenable in law. The question, however, as to whether the respondent can recover the amount which already stands paid to the petitioners. It is admitted case of the parties that the amount was disbursed to the petitioners not on their asking but on the basis of the interpretation of the governmental instructions and consideration of the material by the respondents themselves. The arrears have been received by the petitioners in 1995, which are now sought to be recovered. This Court, while deciding the aforesaid writ petition has already concluded that the petitioners were 4 allowed to enjoy the benefits of senior scale of pay without any objection. It was also observed that no notice with reference to unsatisfactory performance of work or other similar consideration was ever issued to the petitioners. The benefit was accorded to the petitioner without any mistake on their part. The Apex Court in Shyam Babu Verma & others vs. Union of India and others (1994) 2 SCC 521, Purshotam Lal Das & others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2006) 11 SCC 492 and Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, (1995) Supp. (1) SCC 18, has directed that the payment erroneously made shall not be recovered from the petitioners. The present cases are covered by the aforesaid ratio of law. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondents are directed not to effect any recovery pursuant to the decision taken by the respondents withdrawing the senior scale. Both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 23rd March, 2009 (Sanjay Karol), (C) Judge.