IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SABINA, SATYEN VAIDYA, JJ.
State of H.P. & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Dr. B.R. Chauhan (since deceased) through his LRs Kumari Shilpa Chauhan & Ors. - Respondents
LPA No. 695 of 2011
Decided On : 02-03-2023
Appeal - Employment and Service matter - Medical Officer - Revised pay scale - Filing of OA (M) was the second round of litigation initiated by original respondent on substantially identical cause. It will be relevant to notice the factual back ground in which original respondent had to seek legal remedy in the first instance and to approach Tribunal by way of OA (M) for the second time - Entitlement of original respondent as per appellants, was keeping in view the Scheme of the government under which original respondent was entitled for jump in pay scale on completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service. (Para 9, 10)
Finding of Court :
Appellants have taken exception to the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge on the ground that appellants were within their rights to re-fix the pay of original respondent in terms of decision taken by State Government from time to time and learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate such legal position in right perspective - Learned Additional Advocate General representing appellants raised a specific contention that as per the guidelines of Finance department , appellants had rightly re-fixed pay of original respondent as he was entitled only to a minimum pay scale of Rs.12,000/- (revised) - Entitlement of original respondent as per appellants, was keeping in view Scheme of government under which original respondent was entitled for jump in pay scale on completion of 4,9 and 14 years of service - It is clearly evident that original respondent has been held entitled to pay scale of Rs. 14,300-18,150, when original respondent had completed 14 years of service - It was in such view of matter that appellants were directed to re-fix the pay of the original respondent and to effect recovery, if any, on such basis.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
[Satyen Vaidya, J.]
1. Heard.
2. By way of instant Letters Patent Appeal, appellants have assailed judgment dated 24.5.2011, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No. 12583 of 2008.
3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that the appellants vide memorandum dated 4.12.2004, Annexure PA with Writ record, required the predecessor in interest of respondents herein (for short ‘original respondent’) to show cause as to why his salary be not re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and recoveries, as mentioned in the memorandum under reference, be not affected from him. Aggrieved against aforesaid memorandum dated 4.12.2004, original respondent approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing OA(M) 58 of 2005, which, on abolition of the Tribunal came to be listed before this Court as CWP(T) 12583 of 2008.
4. Noticeably, filing of OA(M) 58 of 2005 was the second round of litigation initiated by the original respondent on substantially identical cause. It will be relevant to notice the factual back ground in which original respondent had to seek legal remedy in the first instance and thereafter to approach the Tribunal by way of OA(M) 58 of 2005 for the second time.
5. Original respondent was a Medical Officer working with Health Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh. He was drawing pay in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500, in pre-revised scales as on 1.1.1996. On revision of pay scales, original respondents became entitled to revised pay scale of Rs. 12,000-18,150 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Accordingly, the pay of original respondent was fixed at Rs. 12375/- as on 1.1.1996 vide office order dated 22.10.1998 annexed as Annexure PB with writ record. As per Annexure PB, the pay of original respondent as on 8.6.1996 was fixed at Rs. 14,300/- and at Rs. 14,700/- w.e.f. 1.1.1997. In addition original respondent was also held entitled to NPA at prevalent rates. Subsequently, vide office order dated 23.7.2001 the pay of original respondent was re-fixed by appellants @ Rs. 12,000/- as on 1.1.1996 and Rs. 14,300/- w.e.f. 1.1.1997. A copy of office order dated 23.7.2001 finds place as Annexure PC in writ record.
6. Original respondent assailed office order dated 23.7.2001 before H.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of OA(M) No. 383 of 2001, which came to be decided by the Tribunal on 12.11.2002 in following terms:-
In view of this position the impugned order Annexure- PA is quashed and set aside. Accordingly the present Original Application stands disposed of with no order as to costs. However, a copy of order dated November 12, 2002 passed in OA(M) 357/2001 be also placed on this case file.”
7. The order dated 12.11.2002 passed by H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA(M) 383 of 2001 attained finality. None of the parties thereto had assailed said order. Nonetheless, appellant No. 3 issued memorandum dated 4.12.2004, as noticed above, to the original respondent. Aggrieved against the said memorandum dated 4.12.2004, original respondent then approached the H.P. Administrative Tribunal for the second time by way of OA(M) 58 of 2005. The grievances of original respondent in OA(M) 58 of 2005/CWP(T) 12583 of 2008 mainly was that since the office order dated 23.7.2001 Annexure PC with the writ record had been set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 12.11.2002, the re-fixation of pay and recovery from original respondent vide memorandum dated 4.12.2004 Annexure-PA was illegal and hence unwarranted.
8. Learned Single Judge disposed of CWP(T) 12583 of 2008 vide impugned judgment dated 24.5.2011 in following terms:-
It is admitted position from the pleadings and it has been fairly and squarely admitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that no show cause notice was given to the applicant before reducing....
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.
The binding nature of an employee's undertaking regarding the recovery of excess pay and the authority of competent authorities to re-fix pay scale based on applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders....
The existing basic pay as on 01.01.2006 is the pay drawn in the prescribed existing scale of pay and that it can only be interpreted as the pay applicable to the post payable to the Government servan....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of pay scale to the writ petitioners was in accordance with the state policy, and the withdrawal of the pay scale by the appellant a....
The court established that due process must be followed in altering pay-scales, particularly regarding recovery of payments made in error, emphasizing employee rights post-retirement.
Similarly situated employees entitled to uniform notional pay fixation from 01.01.1996 under 5th CPC anomaly rectification, with actual benefits from 21.04.2004; prior judgments in rem mandate parity....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.