The judgment establishes the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and conducting a proper enquiry before reducing pay, emphasizing that the violation of natural justice in the recovery of excess payment is against the law and procedure.

Hon'ble Sri B. Lal, Chairman:

1. The claim petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 28.3.2003, 19.9.2005 and 23.9.2005, Annexure Nos. A-1, A-2 and A-3 respectively Petitioner also claimed that the benefit of second promotional pay scale be restored and a sum of Rs. 1,43,498/ - be refunded to him with interest @ 12% per annum form 23.9.2005 till date.

2. Facts giving rise to this claim petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lekhpal and subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar Qanoongo w.e.f. 14.8.1975. The petitioner was subsequently confirmed w.e.f 14.8.1977 the petitioner due to is seniority in the department was entitled to be promoted as Registrar Qanoongo, however he was not promoted to the post and therefore he had to file a clam petition No. 160/1990 before - Public Services Tribunal at Luc-know. His claim petition was allowed On the basis of the judgment of the Tribunal, petitioner was allowed selection grade benefits of one increment on his completion of 10 years' service in the cadre of Registrar Qanoongo w.e.f. 14.8.1984. He was given first promotional post of Assistant Land Record Officer w.e.f. 14.8.1991. In accordance with the Government order dated 12.3.2001 referred to in Para4 (10) of the claim petition, petitioner was allowed second promotional pay scale of Rs. 8000/- after continuous service of 24 years to the post of Tehsildar on 14.8.2000. Collector fixed his pay at Rs. 8000/- and after annual increment his basic pay was fixed to Rs. 8275/- per month. In the meanwhile during 2003, an inspection was conducted by Addl. Commissioner, Revenue and .the report of the inspection dated 28.3.2003 is Annexure-1A which was forwarded to Collector by Chief Commissioner Dehradun wherein it was alleged that the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed while granting second promotional pay scale of Rs. 8000/- and therefore a recovery of Rs. 1,43,498/- was imposed on the petitioner. The amount was recovered from the petitioner after his retirement.

3. Respondents filed their written statement and stated that the second promotional pay scale was wrongly fixed and therefore petitioner was asked to refund the amount. Petitioner on 27.7.2005 filed an affidavit stating that a sum of Rs. 1,43,498/- be recovered from his pension and gratuity and he has no objection, if recovery is made from him. On the willingness of the petitioner which he expressed by way of filing an affidavit, the above sum was recovered from the petitioner, therefore the petitioner cannot disown the affidavit. As regards fixation of the pay of second promotional scale, it has been stated that the petitioner was entitled only for amended pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/ - in accordance with the Government order dated 31.12.1997 and not entitled for the scale of Rs. 8000-135000/- and therefore petitioner was wrongly placed in the scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri JP.Kansal and Sri Umesh Dhaundiyal, learned Assistant Presenting Officer for the respondents.

5. Admittedly, petitioner was allowed second promotion after completing continuous and satisfactory service of 24 years. On perusal of the "pay fixation office order dated 1.9.2001", Annexure-A-9, it is observed that the pay scale was fixed by Addl. District Magistrate from 14.8.2000 in the scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- on 1.8.2001. Petitioner had no role in fixation of his pay. However, after receiving inspection note of the Addl. Commissioner Revenue (Annexure-A1), an excess payment of Rs. 1,43,498/-was worked out against the petitioner.

6. Aggrieved with the inspection report, petitioner made representation dated 19.6.2003, Annexure-10(A), wherein petitioner claimed that he was rightly allowed second promotional pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- vide office order dated 1.9.2001 and inspection report has no basis. The said representation was forwarded to State Government by District Collector vide his letter dated 19.3.2003