Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The applicant - writ petitioner has taken out present application seeking below mentioned relief:-
"10(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct respondent - authorities to pay the recovery amount of Rs.1,98,000/- recovered by the respondent
- authority on 07.01.2012 from the retrial benefits of the present applicant despite the order dated 18.10.2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court along with the appropriate rate of interest."
3. In the writ petition filed by the applicant herein, he has sought for below mentioned relief:-
"6(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus, quashing and setting aside the orders dated 26.7.2011 passed by the Executive Engineer, Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Kalol, respondent No.2 herein and order dated 22.7.2011 passed by the Executive Engineer, Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Gandhinagar, respondent No.3 herein stopping the benefits of higher pay-scale and recovery of higher pay-scale, which is granted earlier."
4. The Court, after hearing the writ petitioner, admitted the petition under order dated 18.10.2011. The said order reads thus:-
Heard learned Advocate Mr. Dhawan M. Jayswal for the petitioner.
It is submitted that the impugned orders dated 22.07.2011 and 26.07.2011 passed by the respondent authorities ordering recovery of payment of higher grade to the petitioner from his salary is passed without following principle of natural justice. No notice was also issued to the petitioner.
In the above circumstances, why the expenses of litigation undertaken by the petitioner for taking recourse of this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be not recovered from the salary of the authority passing the order without complying with the principle of natural justice and particularly when earlier higher payscale was granted since 27.12.1983 and continued to be revised accordingly.
In view of the above, issue RULE returnable on 20th December, 2011. Meanwhile, there shall be no implementation, execution and operation of the orders dated 22.07.2011 and 26.07.2011 passed by the respondent authorities and the petitioner shall be paid his salary on the basis of the higher payscale sanctioned pursuant to the order dated 27.12.1983 and thereafter.
Direct Service is permitted.
5. It can be seen from the above mentioned order dated 18.10.2011 that while admitting the petition, the Court passed specific direction by way of interim relief restraining the respondents to not to effect any recovery and not to implement the orders dated 22.7.2011 and 26.07.2011 and to make the payment of salary to the petitioner on the basis of higher pay-scale sanctioned pursuant to the order dated 27.12.1983.
6. The applicant has preferred present application seeking above quoted relief on the ground that despite the said specific and clear directions and restrain order dated 18.10.2011, the respondent authorities have, while making payment to the petitioner, deducted / recovered a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- and thereby, committed breach of the order dated 18.10.2011.
7. Though copy of present application was served to the respondents on 13.4.2012, until now, any reply affidavit opposing present application has not been filed.
8. The applicant herein has relied on the communication dated 6.2.2012 and on the basis of the said communication, learned advocate for the applicant - writ petitioner has shown that the respondent authorities have deducted/recovered a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- towards recovery of higher grade amount. The said order is in direct breach of the order dated 18.10.2011.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that though copy of the application has been served to the learned advocate for the respondents on 13.4.2012, any reply affidavit opposing present application has not been filed, below mentioned order is passed in the interest of justice.
10. It is also noticed (and has not been disputed by the respondent) that the said order dated 18.10.2011 is not challenged and is not set aside/modified until now and has become final. Therefore, the authorities are under obligation to obey the said order in terms and spirit.
(A) Without prejudice to rights and contentions of the respondents, the respondents shall, after receiving an undertaking from the applicant, refund/pay the amount of Rs.1,98,000/- recovered from the applicant
- writ petitioner, which is evident from the communication dated 6.2.2012. The said amount shall be paid/refunded to the applicant - writ petitioner within 10 days from service of certified copy of this order.
(B) The applicant shall file an undertaking on affidavit that if he is defeated in the petition and/or the order dated 18.10.2011 is set aside or modified, then, he shall immediately repay the said amount of Rs.1,98,000/- to the respondents.
(C) The applicant - writ petitioner is permitted to serve copy of this order to the respondent - competent authority.
(D) If the amount is not refunded, as directed hereinabove, it will be open to the applicant - writ petitioner to revive present application. On request, if the present application is required to be revived, then, this Court may consider the option of directing the office to place the application before the Hon'ble the Division Bench, taking up the matters under the Contempt of Courts Act for non-compliance and for disobedience of the direction and order dated 18.10.2011.
The Court has refrained from making any order of costs for present application.
With the aforesaid observations and direction, present application stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top