Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Chaman – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. wrong pay fixation entails recovery in equal installments. (Para 1) |
| 2. junior pay aligned to senior's; rule 9 excludes option differences. (Para 2) |
| 3. service progression from contract to regular and scale placements. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J.
Petitioner feels aggrieved against the office order dated 16.02.2024 issued by the respondents fixing his pay at par with that of his immediate senior/respondent No.4 w.e.f. 21.10.2018 and thereby also ordering recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner due to alleged wrong fixation of his pay, in equal monthly installments.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. I have also heard Mr. Rohit, Deputy Controller (Finance & Accounts) Department of Food & Civil Supplies, who has attended the hearing pursuant to the order passed in this case on 18.09.2025.
2. The case.
2(i) Petitioner was appointed as Clerk on contract basis on 14.09.2011. Respondent No.4, senior to the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on contract basis on 25.08.2011. Both were appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 5910+1900= 7810/-.
2(ii) On completion of five years of contractual service, petitioner was regulariz
Junior's pay under revised rules with 15% enhancement cannot exceed senior's; refixation at par upheld if due to incorrect option, but excess recovery quashed if departmental error.
The court upheld the authority's reduction of the petitioner's pay due to prior erroneous fixation, confirming compliance with the Central Civil Services Rules while quashing the recovery order.
The court ruled against arbitrary recovery of excess salary, emphasizing protections for employees and the necessity for compliance with procedural justice.
The proper interpretation of pay fixation rules under FR 22-B and associated rulings dictates that prior option exercised by a government servant must be adhered to, ensuring benefits are computed co....
While Implementing scheme, difference in pay scales on account of grant of financial upgradation under old ACP Scheme (15.12.1998) under this scheme within same cadre shall not be construed as an ano....
In the matters of this kind the approach is not go entirely on the issue of the lapses and delay but to examine the merits. It is with that approach that this Court has required the Opposite Parties ....
The notification requiring recovery of excess pay under the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules is constitutional and does not violate Article 14.
Merger of Section Officer and AAO pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006 entitles seniors promoted pre-date to minimum of merged scale for 6th CPC fixation at Rs.13,950 + GP 4800, overriding prior pay differen....
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
