The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Government Resolution cannot be retrospectively applied to withdraw pay scales already granted, and recovery of excess payments may not be permissible in certain circumstances.

G.R UDHWANI, J.

In this petition, the petitioner has questioned the action of the respondents reverting the petitioner from the existing pre-revised scale of Rs.1200-2040 and the consequential recovery proceedings.

2. The petitioner joined the service on 14.12.1976 with respondent No. 2 as work-charge Electrician. He was placed in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 on 22.6.1992 on the basis of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 Thereafter, his pay was revised to Rs.4000-6000 with effect from 1.1.1996 However, the respondent No. 2 has passed order on 13.8.2006 reverting the petitioner from the existing pre-revised scale of Rs.1200-2040 to Rs.950-1400. Hence the petitioner has filed the present petition questioning the action of the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent has rightly fixed the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040. The order of the respondent No. 2 is contrary to the G.R Dated 17.10.1988

4. As against the above submission, the learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the petitioner is not eligible to receive the benefit under G.R Dated 17.10.1988

5. The impugned order “Annexure-C” relies upon Government Resolution dated 18.8.1999 which had fallen for consideration of this court in Special Civil Application No. 2536 of 2008 wherein in paragraph Nos. 10 to 20, the following observations were made in almost similar situation:

“10. It is contended that the pay scale was revised not on account of mistake committed by the respondents but it is only on account of the change in the policy of the Government as reflected in the Government Resolution dated 18.8.1999 It was argued that since the husband of the petitioner did not fall under any of the two scales prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 18.8.1999, he was not entitled to the pay scale fixed in the year 1989 and his pay scale was deemed to have been reduced with effect from 1.1.1996 (learned AGP states that date of 1.1.1996 is inadvertently mentioned, the said date may be read as 1.3.1989).

11. From the above arguments, it is noticed that on one hand the petitioner pleads that by correcting the pay scale, a mistake is sought to be corrected in the grant of the pay scale to the husband of the petitioner on 1.3.1989 while on the other hand it is a specific case of the respondents that, in fact, no mistake was committed while fixing the pay of the husband of the petitioner on 1.3.1989 but the said pay scale was revised on account of the Government Resolution dated 18.8.1999 The respondents also contend that in absence of prescription of the pay scale in question in the Government Resolution dated 18.8.1999, the pay scale fixed on 1.3.1989 for the petitioner's husband cannot be said to have been approved by the Government.

12. This court, therefore, would like to examine as to whether by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 18.8.1999 could have revised the pay scale from Rs.1200-1800 to Rs.950-1400. The Government Resolution dated 18.8.1999 refers to four Resolutions mentioned at item Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the preamble. The Resolution goes on to clarify that the daily wagers are not government servants but on account of representation made to the Government, it has been decided to extend certain benefits also to the daily wagers. Consequently, it provides for two pay scales as referred to hereinabove for daily wagers. It appears that the Government Resolution dated 18.8.1999 was passed when the new pay scales recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission were sought to be implemented for the government servants. The Resolution nowhere whispers the withdrawal or revision of the pay scales already granted to daily wagers preceding the date of Resolution i.e 18.8.1999 In fact, it merely revises two pay scales for daily wagers as referred to hereinabove. It does not say that the other pay scales granted to the daily wagers preceding the date of Resolution would be ineffective. In fact, when a question was