- (1.) Heard learned Standing Counsel for petitioners and Sri Hemendra Pratap, Advocate for respondent no. 1.
(2.) This is a thoroughly misconceived and illadvised writ petition and ought not to have been filed particularly in view of the fact that question raised in this writ petition has already been considered and decided against State by this Court as well as Supreme Court.
(3.) In the present case, claimant-respondent no. 1, retired from the post of Assistant Engineer from Irrigation Department on 31.12.1998. At the time of retirement his basic pay was Rs. 11,850/but his pensionary benefits were fixed on pay scale of Rs. 10,200 on the ground that one increment in 1979, i.e., about 19 years back, was wrongly awarded to him and his actual pay at retirement should have been Rs. 10,200/. Consequent thereupon recovery of Rs. 2,07,353.20 was also sought to be made from claimant respondent no. 1.;