Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1672
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
G.R. Udhwani, J.
Manglaben Yuvraj Patil – Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 2536 of 2008
Decided On : 23-08-2016
For the Appellant :Hemang M. Shah, Advocate
For the Respondent: Tirthraj Pandya, Assistant Government Pleader.
IMPORTANT POINT: The parties who would suffer civil consequences by reason of an act of rectification of mistake must be given due notice. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. When a mistake is not rectified for a long period, the same in law, may not be treated to be one.
Headnote:Petitioner questions the order rejecting her representation against fixation(lowering) of pay of her deceased husband—Petitioner contended that if the pay scale was mistakenly granted, no fault can be found with her husband and by correcting the pay scale, a mistake is sought to be corrected in the grant of the pay scale—Held that a resolution cannot be retrospectively applied so as to withdraw the pay scales already granted to the daily wagers preceding the date of the resolution—If by reason of a rectification of mistake, except in some exceptional cases where it is apparent on the face of the record, a mistake cannot be rectified unilaterally.
Result—Petition allowed.
G.R. Udhwani, J.
1. The petitioner is the wife of deceased Yuvraj Sukhdev Patil who was employed as a daily wager helper with the Deputy Executive Engineer, Damanganga Mechanical Sub-Division No. 3, Machchu-II Dam, Morvi, in the year 1979. The petitioner questions the order dated 16.7.2007 rejecting her representation against fixation of pay of deceased husband of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 in substitution of the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800. The petitioner seeks a further declaration that the pay of her deceased husband was rightly fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 and that the respondents should take into consideration the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800 for the purpose of retiral dues and not Rs. 950-1400. An injunction against recovery of retiral dues as a consequence of correction of the pay scale as above is also sought.
2. The husband of the petitioner was appointed as daily wager helper in the year 1979 and was continued as such until 1988 and with effect from 1.3.1989 he was designated as a Shovel Operator in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800. From 1.1.1996 his pay scale was revised to Rs. 4500-7000.
2.1 The husband of the petitioner was called for refixing of the pay scale on 3.2.2005. His pre-revised pay scale was revised to Rs. 950-1400 on 27.10.2005, pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800 with effect from 1.3.1989. Thereafter, he expired on 4.12.2005 while in service. On the basis of such revision, recovery is sought to be made by the respondents. Retiral benefits of the deceased husband of the petitioner are also withheld. Gratuity amount, however, is deposited as directed by order dated 24.10.2008.
3. The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 1739 of 2007 wherein on 18.1.2007 an order directing the petitioner to make a representation was passed. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation and by the impugned order dated 16.7.2007 the same was rejected. This petition is, therefore, filed praying for the relief as aforestated.
4. The respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply opposing the petition.
5. Having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is noticed that the bone of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800 was rightly granted to the husband of the petitioner and until 3.2.2005 no grievance was made by the respondents against the grant of such pay scale. That the pay scale was revised with effect from 1.1.1996 to Rs. 4500-7000 without any demur and objection by the respondents. It was contended that it is not the case of the respondents that the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800 was wrongly granted on account of misrepresentation or fraud exercised by the husband of the petitioner. It was argued that if the pay scale was mistakenly granted, no fault can be found with the husband of the petitioner and it should not have been corrected after a long span of 16 years. It is contended that no recovery of so-called excess pay was permissible. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the above contention, relied on the following decisions:
"1. Lilaben Digambar Navre v. State of Gujarat thro. The Secretary - SCA No. 15690 of 2011 with SCA No. 117 of 2012 - decided on 13.6.2013
2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd. & Ors., (2008 (8) Scale 106)
3. State of Punjab and others etc. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2014 (14) Scale 300)
4. Paras Nath Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2671 of 2009 decided on 21.4.2009 (Supreme Court)."
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this court to paragraph No. 9 of the affidavit in reply of the respondents and contended that even according to the respondents the pay scale granted to the husband of the petitioner on 1.3.1989 was approved and on the basis of that, pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 was granted with effect from 1.1.1996.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Pandya invite
