1. Heard Mr. A.S. Supehia, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Neeraj Soni learned A.G.P. for the respondent Authorities.
2. By this petition, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, following prayer is made:
“quashing and setting the circular datd 11.5.2001 Annexure-F, in so far as it relates to the recovery to be made from the petitioenrs.”
Thus what is prayed for in the petition is interference of this Court with the impugned order to the extent it orders recovery from the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is challenged qua recovery only and there was no misrepresentation or fraud committed by any of the employee. It is further contended that in view of Rule 57-A of B.C.S.R. 1959 no recovery could have been ordered.
4. On the other hand learned A.G.P. Mr. Soni vehemently contended that government is entitled to recover amount from the employees to which they were not entitled to. He further contended that in the present case because of wrong fixation of pay in the higher grade scale the recovery was ordered.
5. Having heared both the learned advocates and having gone through the redcord I find that it is undisputed that so called excess payment was made to the employees not because some fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioenr/ employees. It is settled position of law, and there is also provision in the Rules, viz. Rule 57-A of BCSR, that in such cases no recovery can be ordered. Under these circumstances I am unable to accept the contention of learned A.G.P. that since the wrong fixation of pay was in higher grade scale, Court may take different view. In view of the settled position of law, coupled with provision in Rule 57-A of B.C.S.R., the petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
ali/30 (PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)