ORDER

Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 4, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:

2 | P a g e “ (i) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to calculate the arrear of salary on the basis of basic pay of Rs. 44900/- and pay him arrear of difference of salary along with admissible interest thereupon. (ii) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (iii) Award cost of the original application in favour of the applicant.”

3. The compendium of the facts narrated in the instant original application is that the applicant is aggrieved by the fact that despite his engagement was done at the pay of Rs. 44,900/-, his emoluments have been calculated wrongly on account of a wrong pay and because of this lesser amount has been paid to him. By way of the instant OA, the applicant seeks a direction to the respondents to calculate the arrear of salary on the basis of basic pay of Rs. 44,900/- and pay him arrear of difference of salary along with admissible interest.

4. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties .

5. Disclosing a brief history of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the month of January, 2017, respondent No. 3 issued a notification for appointment of section officer on the basis of re-employment on contract basis upto the age of 64 years. The applicant is a retired class II gazetted officer and thus, being qualified for the above post, he applied. The applicant was found suitable and on 01.11.2017, he resumed charge of Section Officer under respondent no. 3 and his pay was fixed at the basic pay of Rs. 44,900/- . Upon the completion of every one year, the tenure of the applicant was extended up to further one year vide order dated 22.11.2018 and 25.10.2019 through which it was extended up to 14.08.2020. His pay was liable to have been fixed at the basic pay of Rs. 44900/-. Learned counsel argued that during the vacation period in the month of June, 2020, the applicant was inspecting the pay bill for the month of June 2020 wherefrom it was exposed that though he was appointed in the basic pay of Rs. 44900/-, however he was being paid salary on the basic pay of Rs. 36600/- and another officer who was appointed on the same pay scale, his overall payment was 3 | P a g e prepared on the basis of basic pay fixed at Rs. 44,900/-. On

16.06.2020, the applicant submitted a representation before the respondent seeking his pay fixation at Rs. 44900/- In the event of no reply from the respondents, the applicant preferred an RTI. As a reply dated 29.01.2021, the applicant was answered that his pay was liable to have been fixed at basic pay of Rs. 44900/- but the same was wrongly fixed at the basic pay of Rs. 36600/- by respondent no. 4. Thus, learned counsel argued that when the respondents have admitted to the fact that applicant’s pay was fixed wrongly, the applicant is liable to be granted the benefit of arrear payment along with admissible interest and therefore the instant OA be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions of the applicant’s counsel and by way of his counter affidavit submitted that the consequent to the engagement of the applicant, his pay fixation format with the recommendation of Rs. 44900/- was forwarded to the respondent no. 4 but his pay was fixed at Rs. 36,600/- by PCDA, Jaipur. However, the pay fixation performa was shown to the applicant and it was signed by him and declaration in this regard was also accepted by the applicant. Learned counsel further argued that during his entire stint as Section Officer in the respondents’ department, the applicant never a