Recovery of excess payment from employees must adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot be made after an unreasonable delay, especially for Class-3 employees.

JUDGMENT :

Vaibhavi d. Nanavati

1. Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Bharat Jani, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. H. S. Munshaw, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent Board.

2. The petitioners herein in the captioned petitions have challenged the impugned order dated 16.7.2011 issued by the respondent No.1 whereby the first approved higher pay-scale of Rs.5000-Rs.8000 is sought to be revised to Rs.4500-Rs.7000 with effect from 30.12.2000 and has consequently ordered to recover the excess payment made on account of cancellation of pay scale first approved higher grade pay scale of Rs.5000- Rs.8000 revised to Rs.4500-7000 and in view thereof all the petitions are heard together and decided analogously. The Special Civil Application No.2908 of 2012 is treated as lead matter and the order passed in the Special Civil Application No.2908 of 2012 would govern all the captioned petitions.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petitions read thus :-

3.1 The petitioners herein completed 09 years of services on 30.12.2000 and in view of the Government Notification dated 16.8.1994 bearing No.PGR-1194-44-MA were given revision of pay from Rs.1200-2040 to Rs.1400-2600. The Finance Department, State of Gujarat issued Resolution 7.1.1998 applying Fifth Pay Commission appointed by the Central Government and made it applicable to all the employees of the State of Gujarat and in the said Resolution the pay Scale of Rs.1200-2040 was revised to Rs. 4000 - Rs. 6000 with effect from 1.1.1996 and the pay scale of Rs. 1400 - Rs. 2600 was revised to Rs. 5000 - Rs. 8000 with effect from 1.1.1996.

3.2 The office order came to be issued on 26.7.2001 to all the petitioners whereby the pay scales of all the petitioners came to be revised from Rs. 4000 - Rs. 6000 to Rs. 5000- Rs. 8000- with effect from 30.12.2000.

3.3 The Finance Department of State of Gujarat passed a Resolution dated 14.8.1998 whereby it was resolved that pay scale of Rs. 4000- Rs. 6000 is revised as Rs. 4500- Rs. 7000 with effect from 1.1.1996. The Finance Department of State of Gujarat also passed resolution dated 29.8.1998 which clearly states in paragraph No.3 that the cases in which already pay fixed and scrutinized by Local Fund Auditor cannot be reopened.

3.4 In the case of the petitioners Higher Pay Scale of Rs. 5000 - Rs. 8000 was given effect from 30.12.2000, was already scrutinized and approved by the Local Fund Audit and accordingly an entry was made in the service book.

3.5 The petitioners came to know that in the next audit of Local Fund also the pay-scale was approved without any query or audit remark. Even the Account Officer and Verification Unit Examiner and Local Fund Audit also issued a sheet to the petitioner on 17.6.2011 in which the pay-scale was fixed on the basis of higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 was revised to Rs.9300-34800. After almost 10 years of fixation of the pay Scale of Rs. 5000 - Rs. 8000 fixed on the basis of Resolution dated 16.8.1994 and on the basis of Resolution dated 7.1.1998 office order came to be passed on 16.7.2011 against all the petitioners by respondent No. 1 whereby on the basis of remark of Assistant Director of Local Fund Audit, the pay scale of the petitioners came to be cancelled from Rs. 5000 - Rs. 8000 and revised at Rs. 4500 - Rs. 7000 with retrospective effect from 30.12.2000 and also passed an order of recovery from the salary of the petitioners, Annexure-I to the petition.

3.6 Being aggrieved by the impugned action undertaken by the respondents, the petitioners preferred a representation to the respondent No.2 that the higher pay-scale on completion of 09 years of service, given to them fixing their pay-scale from Rs. 4000 - Rs. 6000 at Rs. 5000 - Rs. 8000 cannot be cancelled or revised to Rs. 4500 - Rs.7000 as per Government's own notifications issued from time to time without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It was submitted that