- (1.) STATE of U. P. has filed this special appeal against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 12th April, 2005, whereby bunch of writ petitions have been allowed by issuing a writ of man damus restraining the STATE authorities from recovering the difference between the salary and allowances paid viz-a-viz stipend which should have been paid (for the period of train ing) to the petitioners, who were selected as Sub Inspector Civil, Police/platoon Commander, PAC in 1999 Examination and had undergone training in the year 2001-02. A further direction has been issued that if any recovery has already been made, the same shall be restored to the petitioners concerned.
(2.) THE facts relevant for deciding the present special appeal are as follows: An advertisement was published by the State of U. P. for recruitment on the post of Sub Inspector Civil Police/platoon Com mander PAC in the year 1999. THE result of selection was declared on 6th July, 2001. THE selected candidates were issued appointment letters in terms of the Government Order dated 8th June, 1998 and thereafter sent for training. During the period of training the selectees were paid regular salary in the mini mum of the pay scale along with the allow ances admissible to the post. THE selectees are stated to have completed their training in the year 2001-02. After the training was com pleted, the State Government came out with Government Orders dated 7th July, 2003 and dated 28th October, 2003 whereunder it was recorded that the trainee Sub Inspector, Civil Police/platoon Commander PAC were en titled to stipend and other allowances only for the period of training and not to the regu lar salary as had been paid to them, therefore excess amount paid be recovered. THEse Gov ernment Orders became the bone of conten tion and led to filing of large number of writ petitions by the Sub Inspector Civil Police/platoon Commander PAC. In order to keep the record straight it may be noticed that on the strength of the Government Order referred to above, recov ery proceedings of difference of the amount between the stipend and salary actual paid to the aforesaid Sub Inspector Civil Police/pla toon Commander PAC for the period of train ing were also initiated. The writ Court while entertaining the writ petition granted an in terim order, whereby recovery of the differ ence was stayed till the decision of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge after noticing the provisions of the Government Order dated 8th June, 1998, which permitted the appoint ment of the Sub Inspector Civil Police/platoon Commander PAC before being sent for training, recorded that in view of the same if salary has been paid to the selected Sub In spector Civil Police/platoon Commander PAC for the period they were under training sub sequent to their appointment, no illegality can be said to have been occasioned because of such payment. It has further been recorded that the Government Orders issued on 7th July, 2003 and dated 28th October, 2003 were prospective in nature and had the effect of reversing the policy, which was earlier noti fied by the State Government under the Gov ernment Order dated 8th June, 1998, prospectively only. Lastly it was held that even oth erwise if no misrepresentation or fraud is at tributable to the Sub Inspector Civil Police/platoon Commander PAC, who had been paid salary for the period of training, no recovery of the alleged difference can be permitted to take place in the eye of law.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge has placed re liance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Su preme Court for the aforesaid purpose, which are being noticed hereinbelow. "state of Orissa v. Adwait Charan Mohanty, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 470: 1995 SCC (Lands) 522, Union of India v. Sita Ram Dheer; 1994 SCC (L ands) 1445, Nand Kishore Sharma v. State of Bihar, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 722: 1996 SCC (Lands) 124, State of Karnataka v. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees' Assocn. , (2002) 3 SCC 302: AIR 2002 SC 1223. " The learned Single Judge has therefore issued a writ of mandamus commanding the State authorities not to recover the difference as per Government Orders dated 7th July, 2003 and dated 28th October, 2003 and if any amount has been recovered in respect of the said difference, same has been directed to be refunded.;