The court upheld the re-fixation of pay and set aside the recovery of excess payments, affirming the validity of the Government Resolution affecting pay-scales.

ORDER :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing today.

2. The present appeal emanate from the common judgement and order dated 26.07.2024 passed in the captioned writ petitions, wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge, after threadbare examination of the facts and relevant Government Resolutions, partly allowed the writ petition by maintaining re-fixation of the pay done by the Government authorities and setting aside the recovery of excess payment, which has been effected due to refixation of the pay-scale.

3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Majmudar appearing for the appellants has submitted that the impugned order dated 28.09.2011, by which refixation of the pay-scale and the recovery of excess payment, has been passed without hearing the appellants-original petitioners. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in rejecting the writ petitions so far as re-fixation of pay is concerned. He has submitted that the appellants-original petitioners are entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/-, which was also refixed by the respondent authority subsequently, due to the an objection taken by the Assistant Director of Local Fund Audit, the pay-scale of Rs.5,000- 8,000/- was cancelled and the appellants-original petitioners were placed in the pay of Rs.4,500- 7,000/-. He has further submitted that as per Clause 3(8) of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 and appendix therein, the corresponding higher pay-scale of Rs.1,200-2,040/- would be Rs.1,400-2,600/-, and the same was further revised to pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- pursuant to the 5 th Pay Commission and hence, the pay-scale, which was initially fixed by the respondent authorities of Rs.5,000-8,000/- was appropriate.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar has further submitted that the respondents have also placed reliance on the Government Resolution dated 14.08.1998, wherein the corresponding higher payscales, for which the employees are entitled after rendering 9, 18 and 27 years of service, have been altered. It is submitted that the State Government Resolution is discriminatory and is liable to be set aside as the appellants- original petitioners cannot be disentitled from the pay-scale, which has been fixed pursuant to the 5th Pay Commission. He has submitted that this resolution is challenged in other writ petitions, which the learned Single Judge has also not entertained and the same is subject matter of the LPAs. He has also submitted that the subsequent circular was issued by the Panchayat Department dated 14.12.2018 clarifying the entitlement of the employees for the higher pay-scale is required to be quashed and set aside as the same would be contrary to the pay fixation, which has been done pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 and also by way of the 5th Pay Commission. Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may be allowed.

5. The present appellants-original petitioners, in the writ petition, had assailed the Office Order dated 28.09.2011, by which the higher payscale granted to them were revised from Rs.5,000- 8,000/- to Rs.4,500-7,000/-. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petitions, the State Government (Panchayat Department) has issued another circular dated 14.12.2018 clarifying entitlement of the higher pay-scale of Rs.4,500- 7,000/- and Rs.5,000-8,000/-. The same is assailed in the captioned writ petitions.

6. The learned Single Judge, by comprehensive judgement and order, has partly allowed the writ petition. By the impugned Office Order dated 28.09.2011, the respondent authority had re-fixed the pay-scale of the appellants-original petitioners from Rs.5,000-8,000/- to Rs.4,500- 7,000/- and also ordered recovery of the excess payment of pay-scale. The learned Single Judge has set aside the recovery from the pay by placing reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. vs.