Mahesh Grover, J. - (1.) C.M. Nos. 15361 -62 of 2011. Allowed as prayed for. Main Case
(2.) THE short controversy involved in this petition is that the petitioner, who was working as a Junior Field Investigator, was promoted as Field Assistant on ad -hoc basis on 28.04.1980. The order of promotion, attached as Annexure P -1, reveals that it was an arrangement where the petitioner continued to work as a Junior Field Investigator but in addition to his duties he was also required to function as Field Assistant in the pay -scale of 160 -10 -200 -280/15 -400. By virtue of the notification dated 10.09.1982, benefit of said pay of Rs.25 was made admissible to Junior Field Assistant w.e.f. 01.02.1981. The said benefit was granted to the petitioner as well but subsequently withdrawn vide impugned order dated 30.06.1994 (Annexure P -11). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his services as Field Assistant were regularized subsequent to the relevant date i.e. 01.04.1981 on which date he continued to work on ad -hoc basis as a Field Assistant while still continuing to hold the post of Senior -Junior Field Assistant. He, thus, contends that the benefit was rightly granted to him and the impugned order is to his disadvantage. He further contends that the person who was senior to him and who was similarly promoted on ad -hoc basis as Field Assistant upon similar orders of recovery having been passed against him, had filed a civil suit which was decreed and the order affirmed upto the High Court when the RSA filed by the State was dismissed. Likewise, the junior to the petitioner also got the similar benefit but the petitioner is facing brunt of this impugned order and considering the fact that senior to the petitioner and also his junior have been granted this benefit, the petitioner cannot be put to a dis -advantage viz. his junior. That apart, it has been contended that on the parity of reasoning given in case Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) SCT 333 where the Full Bench has held that benefit once granted to an incumbent cannot be withdrawn when such benefit has not been availed of by making a misrepresentation of fact by the employee. He also cannot be made to suffer the consequences of the impugned order. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner was concededly working on ad -hoc basis as a Field Assistant on the day when such benefit was made available to the Junior Field Investigator w.e.f. 01.02.1981. The benefit was, thus, rightly awarded to the petitioner. It is also to be noticed that the pay notionally affixed is in the grade admissible to Field Assistant. Be that as it may, even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the respondents were justified in withdrawing such a benefit, the same could not be done in view of the observations of the Full Bench in Budh Ram's Case (supra).
(3.) FOR the afore -stated reasons, the writ petition is accepted. Impugned order (Annexure P -11) is directed to be quashed.;