Sengupta, J. - (1.) The Court : The petitioner was a High Court employee. He has retired from services sometimes in the year 1997. There was no difficulty, no question as regard fixation of his pay scale or of his drawal of salary until after expiry of one year after his retirement. The State Government Department concerned has raised question against admissibility and grant of fixation of pay of the petitioner by the learned Chief Justice of this Court. The pay of the petitioner was fixed notionally at the rate of Rs. 164/- per month in terms of Rule 1963 read with letter dated 26th August 1998 issued by the respondent no. 3.
(2.) As I understand from the affidavit of the State Government and also the submission of Mr. Kar Gupta the objection of the Government primarily rested on non-approval of the Governor as required under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the fixation of pay of the petitioner was wrongly done by the High Court administration since it relates to and/or touches with salaries, allowances and pensions and the same requires approval of the Governor of the State. Admittedly no approval was accorded. He further submits in his alternative argument that even though in some other case in the identical situation the benefit of pension has been given wrongly, but the same cannot be a precedent under law upon the State, in other words, one cannot claim any benefit of a wrongful act. In support of his submission he has relied on a decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1976 SC 123.
(3.) On the question of approval and of granting benefit on wrong decision and/or erroneous calculation of pay, a judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 2268 has been cited. Therefore, Mr. Kar Gupta adds, fixation of pay of the petitioner must be rectified in his service records and his pay should be fixed at lesser amount than that of what High Court had wrongly done.;