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 authorities was unsustainable.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 23.12.2021 in W.P. No.7296 of 2020.

Common Judgment

Paresh Upadhyay, J.

1. Challenge in this group of appeals is made to the order dated 25.12.2021 recorded on group of writ petitions being W.P.No.7307 of 2020 and cognate petitions. The respondents in the writ petitions are in appeal.

2. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that, the learned single Judge was in error while arriving at the conclusion that, the order of revision of pay and also the consequential recovery was unsustainable. It is submitted that, according to appellant authorities, the writ petitioners were granted higher scale erroneously - against the policy of the State and having realised the same, as pointed out by the audit authorities, corrective steps were taken and no exception ought to  have been made therein. It is noted that, the learned Additional Advocate General has taken this Court extensively through the G.Os on record so also the reasoning recorded by learned single Judge and the final conclusion arrived at in para 96 of the order under challenge. It is submitted that, the revision of pay, in the facts of the case, was not as such revision of pay but correction of mistake committed by the authorities, and though, the writ petitioners can not be blamed for any misrepresentation on their part and therefore - for the purpose of recovery, some lenient view can be taken, however for the purpose of prospective payment of wages per month, the action of the authorities ought not to have been interfered with. It is submitted that these appeals be entertained.

3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the writ petitioners has submitted that, the grant of pay scale to the writ petitioners was strictly on the basis of policy of the State as contained in G.Os issued from time to time and the action of the authorities of not granting due pay scale even prospectively was also illegal. It is submitted that, not only that the action of the appellant authorities of ordering recovery is in any case unsustainable. It is submitted that, even on merits, it is the case of the writ petitioners that, the pay scale was rightly granted to them. It is submitted that, the directions given learned single Judge be not interfered with. It is further submitted that, some of the employees have retired and some have died also. It is submitted that, the person who was not granted the pay scale at the relevant time, for the reason other than his non-entitlement, who was otherwise similarly situated to the other writ petitioners, was required to be treated at par and therefore positive direction given by learned single Judge qua him also can not be said to be an error and therefore that part be also not interfered with. It is submitted that these appeals be dismissed.

4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record this Court finds as under:-

4.1 The writ petitioners were initially appointed as Motor Mechanics with the appellant Corporation. The said post is treated to be the technical post like the post of Wireman. Though comparison is attempted to be made of the case of Motor Mechanic with that of Wireman, in the facts of the case, it may not be required to be gone that far, and that is how that aspect is not stretched further.

4.2 This Court has taken into consideration the G.Os issued by the Government in Finance Department from time to time, mainly which pertains to general revision of pay effective from 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006. In this regard, we have taken into consideration G.O.162 dated 13.04.1998 (page 6) which mainly pertains to the policy of the State with regard to revision of pay effective from 01.01.1996 and which is not qua these writ petitioners but all the employees of the State on the whole. Schedules 1 and 2 annexed therewith is also taken into consideration. The next revision of pay was from 01.01.2007 (