- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this case is being disposed of at the admission stage.
(2.) THE petitioner has prayed for, quashing the order contained in Memo No. 409 dated 17.4.2001 (Annexure -8) by which a decision has been taken to recover excess salary paid to the petitioner; and for payment of post retrial dues.
(3.) IT is stated and submitted by the petitioner that his services were regularized on 17.9.1958. He was promoted on 2.8.1969. He was again promoted on 22.5.1981 and 24.11.1982. At the time of giving the said promotions, the respondent never said that the petitioner was getting a wrong higher pay scale. The respondent did not say so even at the time of deciding he dispute regarding the seniority of the petitioner on November 1991. Even when the petitioner was notionally promoted and pay of the petitioner was revised, the respondents did not raise any objection with regard to drawal of excess salary by the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that after the petitioner has retired in the year 1999, such matters are being raised. Mrs, I. Sen, Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 to 6 stated that an undertaking was given by the petitioner on 30th May, 1981 to the effect that if any excess payment is made on account of salary or other heads, or if there is any rent due, the petitioner will be bound to refund/pay the same. Therefore, she submits that the respondents are entitled to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner. She further submitted that at the time of calculation of pension etc. after the retirement it was detected that excess payment against the salary has been drawn by the petitioner. She further submitted that impugned letter dated (Annexure -8) is not a final decision but it is only for calculation of deductible amount as per the pay scale. In other words, she submitted that a final decision in the matter is yet to be taken and, therefore, this writ petition is premature.;