IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14516 of 2016 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14517 of 2016 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-

==================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✓

==================================================

NAVINBHAI MANJIBHAI ASARI SON OF SHRI MANJIBHAI ASARI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==================================================

Appearance:

HIMANSHI R BALODI(8919) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. DHRUTI PANDYA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR RD DAVE(264) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Date : 16/02/2026 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Ms. Himanshi R. Balodi, learned advocate for the respective petitioners, Ms. Dhruti Pandya, learned AGP for respondent No.1 as also Mr. R.D.Dave, learned advocate for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5, at length.

2. RULE returnable forthwith. Ms. Dhruti Pandya, learned AGP as also Mr. R.D.Dave, learned advocate, waive service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the concerned respondents.

3. Both these petitions raise a common question, i.e., recovery of excess payment of salary from the petitioners by the respondent-Corporation that too without affording any opportunity of hearing and at the fag-end of their service career. In view of the commonality of the said issue involved in both these matters, they were heard together and are decided by way of this common judgment.

FACTS OF THE CASE

4. Petitioner of Special Civil Application No.14516 of 2016, was promoted from the post of Dy. Manager to Manager in the year 1995 and at that point of time, it was pointed out to respondent – Corporation that there is a pay anomaly between him and one Ms. V.B.Shah, who is junior to him though working on the same post. So, petitioner sought relief of stepping up, which was duly granted by respondent w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Thereafter, at the time of granting benefits of 6th pay- commission, recovery of excess payment sought from the petitioner on the ground that there was a wrong fixation of his pay while granting benefits as per 5th pay-commission in the year 1996.

4.1 Upon representation of the petitioner, a committee was formed by the respondent – Corporation and accordingly, his representation was accepted, thereby, appropriate office order came to be passed in the year 2012 by the respondent.

4.2 It appears that due to several representations from other employees of different posts, received by the respondent to step up their pay, again exercise was undertaken and as per the opinion of the new committee, recovery has been sought from the petitioner. Thus, vide impugned communication dated 17.08.2015, it was decided to deduct the amount from the salary of the petitioner to adjust the excess payment made to him.

5. Likewise, in the case of petitioner of Special Civil Application No.14517 of 2016, he was appointed as a Stenographer, Grade-III and eventually, promoted as Stenographer, Grade-I in the year 1992 and also raised a similar grievance that junior to the petitioner is getting higher pay than the petitioner. In his case also, the aforesaid modality was adopted by the respondent – Corporation and passed an office order in the year 2012 when granted benefits of 6th pay commission. But again, in the year 2015, due to opinion of new committee, respondent-Corporation decided to recover the excess payment by deducting amount from his salary to adjust it against excess payment.

6. Thus, in view of the said undisputed facts between the parties, it is very much clear that there was no fraud or representation by any of the petitioners when availed the benefits from the respondent – Corporation; rather, as a harsh step, that too, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, recovery of the excess amount effecte