- (1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Pujara for the petitioner and Mr. Gori, learned AGP for the respondent authorities. The facts of the present petition, in short, are to the effect that the petitioner, a degree holder in Electrical Engineering was appointed as Demonstrator in the RC Technical Institute by order dated 15.9.1966 and he resumed his duties on 19.9.1966. Thereafter, the petitioner was duly selected and appointed by way of direct recruitment as Assistant Lecturer by order dated 13.4.1982. The petitioner was, thereafter, upgraded as lecturer by order dated 9.5.92 w.e.f. 30.4.1987. Thereafter, the petitioner was given the senior scale of Rs.3000-5000 and selection grade of Rs.3700-5700 by order dated 27th July, 1995 w.e.f. 30th April, 1995. Thereafter, the respondents by order dated 18th June, 1998, cancelled the selection grade granted in favour of the petitioner with retrospective effect from 30th April, 1995 and ordered for recovery of the excess amount. That order was challenged by the petitioner before this court by filing special civil application no. 4989 of 1998 which was allowed by this Court (Coram : Miss Justice R.M. Doshit) on 22nd April, 1999. Under the said order, this court set aside the order dated 18th June, 1998 and it was kept open for the respondents to pass appropriate orders after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to show cause to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents were to take further action after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Then, the reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner by the respondents and thereafter, the respondents passed order on 27th August, 1999 adverse to the petitioner and the recovery has been ordered against the petitioner and the said order dated 27th August, 1999 is under challenge in this petition.
(2.) In this matter, on behalf of the respondent No.2, one Mr. V.U. Upadhyay, Deputy Director working in the office of the respondent no.2 has filed affidavit in reply wherein it has been contended that the petitioner is not entitled for the selection grade and that was rightly withdrawn or cancelled by the respondents. In present petition, petitioner is not challenging the order of withdrawal of selection grade and as the petitioner has already retired from service. In the present petition, the petitioner is praying for directing the respondents not to effect recovery in view of the order dated 27th August, 1999. The legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 27th August, 1999 need not be gone into because the petitioner has already retired from service on 2nd November, 2000. Against the petition, all the averments made by the deponent on merits that the petitioner is not entitled for the selection grade, learned advocate Mr. Pujara has raised question in this petition that even considering the order dated 27th August, 1999 cancelling the selection grade, whether recovery is permissible or not? Reply filed by the respondents is relating to the merits but the reply is not of much relevance in respect of this aspect. According to the respondents, as averred in the reply, the petitioner has miserably failed to discharge his moral obligations and through due process of rescreening the competent committee took the step of withdrawing the selection grade and granting his senior scale of Rs.3000-5000 w.e.f.30.4.95. The deponent has submitted that he petitioner has approached the Court to have the privilege of selection grade and if not to get the recovery waived under rule 57A of the BCSRs. According to the deponent, this case is neither of incorrect seniority nor wrong interpretation of the relevant Government Resolution but the issue arose just because the verification of the pay scale of demonstrator in Electrical Engineering was left out because of the existence of similarly designated higher pay scale posts sanctioned at later dates to match responsibilities and duties in polytechnics and degree college for degree/diploma disciplines. Thus, according to the respondents, the petitioner herein is not entitled to the benefit of rule 57A of the BCSRs to have the benefit of waiving off recovery. The State had initiated immediate action to review the case and a long period such as that of 12 years has not passed under which the petitioner can claim the benefit of waiving of recovery. In para 8 of the reply, the respondent has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits of rule 57A of the BCSRs.
(3.) Relevant averments made by the deponent in his affidavit in reply are reproduced as under: "This case is neither of incorrect seniority nor wrong interpretation of the relevant GR but the issue arose just because the verification of the pay scale of Demonstrator in Electrical Engineering was left out because of the existence of similarly designated higher pay scale posts sanctioned at later dates to match responsibilities and duties in polytechnics and degree college for degree/diploma disciplines. ";