IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Pay Scale – Down-grading of pay scale and pension – Benefit of Time Bound Promotion scheme shall be applicable when an employee has worked for twelve years in same post and in same pay scale.
(2) Order for recovery should not be passed when there is no misrepresentation on part of employee.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 09.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3118 of 2021, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants herein and has confirmed the judgment and order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the ’Tribunal’), by which the Tribunal allowed Original Application No. 238/2016 and quashed and set aside orders dated 06.10.2015 and 21.11.2015, thereby down-grading his pay scale and pension, the State of Maharashtra and others have preferred the present appeal.

2. That respondent no.1 herein was initially appointed on 11.05.1982 as a Technical Assistant on work charge basis and continued on the said post till absorption. By G.R. dated 26.09.1989, 25 posts of Civil Engineering Assistants were created and respondent no.1 herein was absorbed on one of the said posts. Respondent no.1 was granted the benefit of first Time Bound Promotion (for short, ‘TBP’) considering his initial period of appointment of 1982 on completion of twelve years of service and thereafter he was also granted the benefit of second TBP on completion of twenty four years of service. Respondent No.1 retired from service on 31.05.2013. After his retirement, pension proposal was forwarded to the Office of the Accountant General for grant of pension on the basis of the last pay drawn at the time of retirement.

2.1 The Office of the Accountant General raised an objection for grant of benefit of first TBP to respondent no.1 considering his date of initial appointment dated 11.05.1982, on the basis of the letter issued by Water Resources Department, Government of Maharashtra on 19.05.2004. It was found that respondent no.1 was wrongly granted the first TBP considering his initial period of appointment of 1982 and it was found that he was entitled to the benefit from the date of his absorption in the year 1989 only. Vide orders dated 06.10.2015 and 21.11.2015, his pay scale was down-graded and consequently his pension was also re-fixed.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with orders dated 06.10.2015 and 21.11.2015 down-grading his pay scale and pension, respondent no.1 approached the Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 238/2016. By judgment and order dated 25.06.2019, the Tribunal allowed the said original application and set aside orders dated 06.10.2015 and 21.11.2015 and directed the appellants herein to release the pension of respondent no.1 as per his pay scale on the date of his retirement. While passing the aforesaid order, the Tribunal observed and held that respondent no.1 was granted the first TBP considering his initial period of appointment of 1982 pursuant to the approval granted by the Government vide order dated 18.03.1998 and the subsequent approval of the Finance Department, and therefore, it cannot be said that the benefit of the first TBP was granted mistakenly. The Tribunal also observed that the services rendered by respondent no.1 on the post of Technical Assistant (for the period 11.05.1982 to 26.09.1989) cannot be wiped out from consideration while granting the benefit of first TBP.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, quashing and setting aside orders dated 06.10.2015 and 21.11.2015, refixing the pay scale and pension of respondent no.1, the appellants herein preferred writ petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition. Hence, the present appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent.

3.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that respondent no.1 was initially appointed on 11.05.1982 as a Technical A