WP/4432/1996 of VIDYA SHANKAR TIWARI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH and ORS. on 23 December 2005

HIGH COURF‘OF CHHATTISGARH AT EIMSWR

WxitPetition No. 4432 of 1995

PetitionerVidya Shankar['l‘iwari,]agedaboutyears,[son][ of‘Shri][ B.][ P.][ ’I‘iwari,]Assistant Teacher, NagarpalikaUcchatar Madhyamjk Shala,Dhamtari, Disirict— Raipur, MP; (NowC.G.)VexsusRespondents1.The State of Madhya Pradesh, thmugh,Secmtary,[.] School Education, VallabhBhawan, Bhopal (Now State ofChhathsgarh MammlayaRalpur)Jomt Dnoctor, Pubhc Instrucnons,M P Rmpur D1v1s10n, Ralpur3.Chmf Mummpal omcer NagatpahkaPanshadDhamtan DlsumtRalpur,M P (now c G)

Avaslya Semor Auditor, Local FundsAudit Nagmpm PanshadDhnmtan, Dxsmct- Ralpur, M P (NowCG)

SMe BenchHon’ble Mr Justlcc Satlsh K mihohi J

Mr Awadh[’I‘npatln,]Advocatc for the petmonerMrPankaj Shnvastava, Panel lawyer for Respondents No Shnvastava, Panel lawyer for Respondents No Panel lawyer for Respondents No lawyer for Respondents No for Respondents No Respondents No No1 and 2 and 2 2Mr Yashwant Smgh Thakur Advocate for Respondents No. 3 and 4. Yashwant Smgh Thakur Advocate for Respondents No. 3 and 4. Smgh Thakur Advocate for Respondents No. 3 and 4. Thakur Advocate for Respondents No. 3 and 4. Advocate for Respondents No. 3 and 4. for Respondents No. 3 and 4. Respondents No. 3 and 4. No. 3 and 4. 3 and 4. and 4. 4.

Pankaj Shnvastava, Panel lawyer for Respondents No Shnvastava, Panel lawyer for Respondents No Panel lawyer for Respondents No lawyer for Respondents No for Respondents No Respondents No No1 and 2 and 2 2Mr Yashwant Smgh Thakur Advocate for Respondents No. 3 and 4. Yashwant Smgh Thakur Advocate for Respondents No. 3 and 4. Smgh Thakur Advocate for Respondents No. 3 and 4. Thakur Advocate for Respondents No. 3 and 4. Advocate for Respondents No. 3 and 4. for Respondents No. 3 and 4. Respondents No. 3 and 4. No. 3 and 4. 3 and 4. and 4. 4."ORAL ORDERr(231d December, 2005)The following order, of the Court was passed by 3ll h K. Apihotrl J,~ "Heard.The petitioner was appointed as Peon on the pay scale of Rs. 125- 15.0vide onier dated 25.8.1980 (Annekme’ P/3) on pmban‘on $1; a periodoftwoyears.Vidaorder dated19.24983(Annexme‘P/4)thepetitioner-was conhnned onthepost[of][ Peon]after compleh‘onofsuccessfulprobanon penodVde order dated15 1 1990 (AnnexurePIS) the Respondent No 3 appomted the petitioner pursuant to themcommendatlondated29.12.1989oftheDistnct‘Selection i Committee on the post of Assistant Teacher (Lab Assistant) at thescale of Rs.Rs. 975-1650 pay (975-25-1000-30-1210~40-145O50-1650).Thereafter the services of the peu'tioner was con&med on the post of

1650.Hereferredtherecommendation,\oftheDistrict‘Selection\Committeedated

29. 12.1989 (Annexum R-3/ 2) whiCh menn'ons that the petitioner was‘mcommendedfor appointment on the post of Lab Assistant.It wasfurther contended that the orders dated15. 1. 190 and 16.9. 1992 wexepassed[inadvertently]by mietake. Oh quexy,leamed counsel informedthat[‘no]action has been taken against the o$cer who had passed theorders dated 15.1.1990‘ and16.9.1992thembythepetitioner[was]promoted[and][ continued]on the post of Assistant Teacher and the payscaleof theAssistant Teacher wasaccotdinglygiven.It wasnextcontended that there was no post of Assistant Teacher 1n the sta$ngpattern[of][ the][ school.]

After hearing learnedcounsel for the parties and perusing recordsappended to the petition as well as to the return, it is eviient that thepetitioner[was]appointedasAssistant'l‘eacher (LabAssistant)videorder dated15.1.1990. The petitioner was condlmed on the post ofAssistant Teachervideorderdated16.9.1992.Thepetitioner[has]worked as Assistant Teacher and was paidsalary of the AssistantTeacher, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondentsalso. Even otherwise, the principle of natural justice has also not beencomplied with. Thepetitioner[had][ bonahde]acceptedthepost[and]obtained salary on the basis of unambiguous and clear orders dated15.1.1990and16.9.1992passedbytheRespondentNo.3;Thepetiu‘oner[had][ not]made any misrepresentation to obtain the post ofAssistant Teacher and consequently salary thereof.If there was anymistake,the same was committed by the Respondent No.3.For themistakeoftherespondent/employer, thepetitionercouldnotbepenalized[without]folldwing principles of natural justiceBefore askingthe petitioner for making refund of extra paymentno opportunity ofhearing was ad‘orded to the petitionerThe petitioner had adjustedhimself to the facts of the case and had utilized the money what was .

legally and[duly]paid[to][ him.][ No][ opportunity][ of][ hearing][ was][ given][ to]the petitioner[before][ the][ impugned][ order][ dated][ 17.5.][ 1996][ was][ passed]and as such[the][ same][ is][ umeasonable,][ arbiuaxy][ and][ deserves][ to][ be]quashed.

Learned counsel[for][ the]petiiioner[has][ cited][ decision][ of][ the][ Supreme]Court in Sahib Ram[ Vs.][ State][ of][ Haryana][ &][ others,][ (1995][ Supp][ (1)]S.C.C.18) Whelein[it][ was][ held][ that][ :-][ “Admittediy][ the][ appellant][ does]Underthenotpossesstherequirededucationalqualifications,cirwmstanoes[the][ appellant][ would][ not][ be][ entitled][ to][ the][ relaxation][ The]PrincipalerredingrantinghimtherelaxationSincethedateofrelaxation the appellant[had][ been]paid[his][ salary][ on][ the][ revised][ scale.]However,it is not on[amount][ of][ any][ nu'srepresentation][ made][ by][ the]appellant[that][ the][ benefit][ of][ the][ higher][ pay][ scale][ was][ given][ to][ him][ but]by wrong[construction][ made][ by][ the][ Principal][ for][ which][ the][ appellant]cannot be[held][ to][ be][ at]fault.[Under][ the][ cirwmstances][ the][ amount][ paid]till date[may][ not][ be][ recovered]from[the][ appellant.”]

For the reasons[stated][ above,][ in][ the][ facts][ and][ circumstances][ of][ the]17.5.1996case,thepetition[is][ allowed.][ The][ impugned][ otder][ dated](Annexure[P/][ 1)][ is][ quashed.][ No][ otder][ as][ to][ costs.]

Sd/—SATISH K. AGNIHomJudge