Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 2.2.2002 (Annex. 5) and because of recovery effected from the petitioner in pursuance to the said order dated 2.2.2002, in support of which the petitioner has placed on record Annex. 6 whereby his salary is refixed. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Safai Karamchari as back as on 1.12.1964 in the office of Nagar Palika, Salumber. He was confirmed on this post on 30.12.1965. The petitioner was then promoted on the post of Naka -Guard on 19.4.1977 and according to the petitioner, his name finds place in the seniority list published on 21.1.1993. The petitioner has placed on record abstract copy of seniority list as Annex. 1. These facts mentioned in para No. 2 have not been denied by the respondents in their reply specifically or even by implication. The petitioner was then promoted on the post of Sub -Nakedar on 1.10.1989 and his promotion was approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the petitioner has placed on record copy of resolution dated 12.7.1989 to 13.9.1989 as Annex. 2 and the petitioner was promoted to the post of Nakedar on 26.9.1989 for which necessary order was issued, copy of which is placed on record as Annex. 3. According to the petitioner, a revised pay scale was given to the petitioner with effect from 1.9.1988 and that was 190/910 -1520 and the petitioner was fixed on the basic pay of Rs. 5300 on 1.9.1997. Substantially these facts are not in dispute and all of sudden Annex. 5 dated 2.2.2002 was issued by the respondent. This Annex. 5 appears to be certificate of last pay drawn by the petitioner which appears to have been issued because of the reason that the petitioner was posted as Sub -Nakedar in Municipal Council, Udaipur due to his absorption on the post of Fireman. In this last pay certificate in column No. 4, it has been mentioned that the petitioner's pay fixation on the post of Sub -Nakedar was wrongly fixed and, therefore, Rs. 20,183/ - which the petitioner has drawn in excess may be deducted from his salary at the rate of Rs. 1000/ - per month. In consequence thereof, the entire amount of Rs. 20,183/ - has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition to challenged Annex. 5 dated 2.2.2002.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was appointed after due selection and continued in service and he was found suitable for promotion by the Promotion Committee and he was promoted and was given posting of promotional post. The petitioner never was given any notice that he has been wrongly fixed in the pay scale. The petitioner was never served with any order of refixation of him in any particular pay scale and straightaway while issuing the last pay certificate, a note has been appended that Rs. 20,183/ - has been paid in excess to the petitioner than the amount to which he was entitled. In view of the above, the endorsement made in Annex. 5 at No. 4 is absolutely illegal and has been recorded without there being any order of any competent authority. It is also submitted that even till today, the respondents could not show any order by which the petitioner's salary has been refixed.;