Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.06.1998 (Annexure -7) wherein recovery is sought to be effected from the petitioner as he alleged to have been granted increments to which he was not entitled.
(2.) THE petitioner, an apprentice LDC, was selected for being imparted practical training with the respondents on 02.08.1975. On completion of the training, he was posted as Conductor on 09.02.1976. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed as LDC with the respondents vide order dated 30.08.1978. In the aforesaid order of his appointment, it was mentioned in condition No. 5 that he would be entitled for increments only after passing of typing test. The petitioner was called for the typing test held in January 1994 but he failed to qualify. The petitioner qualified the typing test on 17.07.1995 (Annexure -6). However, he had been given annual increments even though he had not qualified the type test in terms of the condition stipulated in the appointment letter. The petitioner, apprehending that recovery of increments would be effected from him, preferred a suit for permanent injunction seeking restraint against recovery. He also preferred an application for temporary injunction, which was rejected by the civil court on 27.08.1997 being pre -mature as no order for recovery had been passed by the respondents. Subsequently, the respondents passed the order dated 26.06.1998 (Annexure -7) whereby recovery of increments paid to the petitioner from 14.02.1979 to 28.06.1995 was initiated. The petitioner withdrew the civil suit with liberty to challenge the order dated 26.06.1998. Consequently, the order of recovery dated 26.06.1998 has been impugned by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of recovery and hence, the principles of natural justice were violated. He also submitted that imposition of condition of recovery in the appointment order was in violation of Clauses 21 and 23 of the Standing Order of 1965 whereby the employees are entitled to increments from the date of appointment. It is also stated that regulation 37 of the 1965 Regulations provides for all services to be counted for the purpose of grant of increment.;