KRISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Helper with effect from June 15, 1972. On January 21, 1983 he was promoted as a Clerk and continued to work in the aforesaid capacity till date. On January 1, 1994, the petitioner was granted the Higher Standard Pay Scales of Rs. 1200-2040 after completion of 10 years of regular service. The pay-scale of all the categories were revised with effect from January 1, 1996. Consequently, the scale of the petitioner was also revised to Rs. 4000-6000. On February 19, 2004 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner intimating that he was not entitled to the ACP scale and, therefore, he was only entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590, whereas, he had been wrongly granted first ACP scale of Rs. 4000-6000 with effect from January 1, 1996. Consequently, he was required to show cause why first ACP scale granted to him be not withdrawn and recovery of the excess amount be not effected. The petitioner filed a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice and relied upon the various judgments of this Court including the three Division Bench judgments of this Court in Suraj Bhan and others v. State of Haryana,2001 1 RSJ 205, Jagmal Singh and others v. State of Haryana,2002 2 RSJ 401 and Kishan Chand Bhardwaj v. State of Haryana, 2002 1 SCT 399. Reply filed by the petitioner was considered by the Assistant Agriculture Engineer (competent authority) who vide order dated July 7, 2004 intimated to the petitioner that his reply had been considered but it had been found that only such persons were entitled to ACP scales who had approached the High Court and since the petitioner has not approached this Court, therefore, he is not entitled to the said pay scale. Consequently, his pay was reduced to Rs. 3050-4590 with effect from January 1, 1996 and the recovery of the excess amount was ordered to be effected from him. The order dated July 7, 2004 has been appended as Annexure P.6 with the present petition and has been challenged by the petitioner through the present petition.

(2.) In the reply, the respondents have stated that since the petitioner had earlier been promoted, therefore, he was not entitled to ACP scale and recovery of excess amount had rightly been ordered and his pay had rightly been fixed at Rs. 3050-4590.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.