- (1.) EXPECTATION transformed into disappointment when the appellants -petitioners were called upon to disgorge the excess amount of salary paid due to an alleged wrong fixation of pay scale on the post of Typist in the respondent - Corporation. This uncertainty and insecurity of preserving the pay scale drawn, opened the pursuit of litigation, and the appellants knocked the doors of this Court before the learned single Judge who un -ravelled the folly of the chase and dismissed the petitions.
(2.) DESTINY was otherwise. The course of human affairs led to this situation. The appellants plead that they were oblivious of any such lapse that is now being announced by the respondents that should not be read to their disadvantage.
(3.) THESE three appeals arise out of a common judgment and order of the learned single Judge in five writ petitions that were decided together vide judgment and order dated 6.4.2010. The learned single Judge dismissed all the writ petitions, and came to the conclusion that the correction of the pay scale of the appellants - petitioners on the post of Typist which ultimately resulted in reduction thereof from Rs. 1350 -2200 to Rs. 1025 -1725, was justified, and the order passed by the authority dated 19.4.2001 was correct. The recovery of the excess amount paid was, however, protected. The appellants are appointed against the post of Typist in the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited (Corporation). They were appointed on different dates on 25.3.1991, 23.4.1991 and 29.7.1995 respectively. Those who were appointed on 23.4.1991, were appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 410 -640. The others who were appointed in 1995, their appointment letters show that they were appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 1350 -2200. Those who were appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 410 -640, were also given the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. 1350 -2200 on the revision of the pay scale in 1995. The facts have been mentioned by the learned single Judge in detail and, therefore, we are not repeating the same but we are narrating the facts herein after so as to understand the controversy and the challenge raised on behalf of the appellants.;