Jharkhand High Court
Mrinal Kant Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 3894 of 2019
With
W.P.(S) No. 2491 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 4051 of 2018
With
W.P.(S) No. 4145 of 2018
With
W.P.(S) No. 6345 of 2018
With
W.P.(S) No. 437 of 2021
With
W.P.(S) No. 4366 of 2021
With
W.P.(S) No. 1196 of 2022
In W.P.(S). No. 3894 of 2019
1. Mrinal Kant Singh
2. Rajiv Kumar
3. Md. Aftab Alam
4. Subash Chandra ......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt.
of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Director (Secondary Education), School Education and Literacy
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. District Education Officer, Ranchi.
6. District Education Officer, Dumka.
7. District Education Officer, Sahebganj.
8. District Education Officer, Gumla.
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 2491 of 2009
1. Prabhat Kumar
2. Laxmi Kumari ......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
6. The District Education Officer, Hazaribagh.
7. The District Education Officer, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
2
In W.P.(S). No. 4051 of 2018
1. Ravindra Kumar Ravikar
2. Sujit Kumar
3. Rajiv Kumar Singh
......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand.
3. The Principal Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. The District Education Officer, East Singhbhum.
6. The District Education Officer, Latehar.
7. The District Education Officer, Dhanbad.
8. The Incharge, Headmaster, BPM +2 High School, Burma Mines, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
9. The Headmaster, R.K. +2 High School, Chandwa, Latehar.
10.The Headmaster, GNM +2 High School, Katrasgarh, Dhanbad.
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 4145 of 2018
1. Bidyut Kumar Ojha
2. Kumar Pawel Raman
3. Shashi Ranjan Kumar
......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education & Literacy
Deprtment, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. The District Education Officer, Giridih.
6. The District Education Officer, Latehar.
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 6345 of 2018
1. Sanjay Kumar
2. Binay Kumar Thakur
3. Ram Kumar Gautam
4. Sanjay Kumar Sinha
5. Bibhas Chandra Choudhary ......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt.
of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3
3. Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Director (Secondary Education), School Education and Literacy
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. District Education Officer, Ranchi.
6. District Education Officer, Dumka.
7. District Education Officer, Sahebganj.
8. District Education Officer, Gumla.
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 437 of 2021
1. Arun Kumar
2. Indradeo Prasad Yadav
......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Secondary Education and Literacy
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Principle Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Director, Secondary Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. The District Education Officer, Deoghar.
6. Principal, R. Mitra, 10+2 School, Deoghar.
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 4366 of 2021
1. Uday Shankar
2. Sanjeev Kumar ......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education Directorate, Human Resources
Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
.......... Respondents
In W.P.(S). No. 1196 of 2022
1. Murari Kumar Singh
2. Sanjay Kumar Sinha
......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of
School Education & Literacy, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Department of School Education
& Literacy, Ranchi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Planning-cum-Finance, Govt.
of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The District Education Officer, Bokaro.
.......... Respondents.
-----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
M/s. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Krishna Prajapati,
Rajendra Krishna, Jay Shankar Tiwari,
Ritu Kumar, Satakshi, Onkar Nath Tiwary,
Roop Kamal, Baibhaw Gahlaut, Prashant
Vidyarthi, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC-II
Mr. Praveen Akhouri, SC (M)-I
Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC (M)-III
M/s. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Sarvendra Kumar,
Deepak Kumar, Rakesh Kr. Roy, Sharabhil
Ahmed, Sudhanshu Kr. Singh, ACs
C.A.V. ON 26.04.2023 Pronounced on 11.08.2023
Dr. S.N. Pathak, J The issues involved in all these writ petitions are same, similar and
identical and as such they have been tagged and heard together on various
dates and are being disposed of by this common order.
Prayers made in writ petitions:
2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions, except the petitioners of
W.P.(S). No. 437 of 2021, have jointly prayed for following relief:
(I) for quashing order No. 1940 dated 20.10.17, issued by the
Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi, by
which, the order dated 26.09.2016 whereby the petitioners
have been granted G.P. Rs.4800/-, has been cancelled and a
decision has been taken that the petitioners shall be given
the G.P. of Rs.4200/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 with further
direction that excess payment so made shall be recovered in
24 installments.
(II) for quashing the order dated 18.04.2009, issued by the Joint
Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Ranchi, whereby it has been communicated to the Principal
Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi vide resolution dated 28.02.2009, that
10+2 Lecturers (Untrained/ Instructors) have been granted
G.P. of Rs.4800 whereas as per Appendix-3, GP admissible
to the Lecturer (Untrained/ Instructors) in the revised pay-
scale is Rs.4200/- and therefore, the matter related to this
should be enquired and excess payment which has been
made to the employees due to this wrong pay fixation
should be recovered from the concerned employee.
(III) for quashing the office order dated 25.11.2020, passed by
the Director, Secondary Education, Ranchi, denying G.P. of
Rs.4800/- to the petitioners.
3. The petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 437 of 2021, have prayed for
quashing the memo No. 1883/ Ranchi, dated 25.11.2020, issued by
respondent No. 4, whereby the respondents have fixed the Grade Pay of
Rs.4200/- deducting the admissible Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-.
The petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 437 of 2021, has further prayed
for quashing the order contained in memo No. 1863/ Ranchi, dated
21.12.2020, issued by respondent No. 5, whereby the said respondents
directed to take appropriate steps in pursuance of the memo No. 1883/
Ranchi, dated 25.11.2020.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
4. According to petitioners, they were appointed in the year 1993 as
Vocational Education Instructor i.e. Vocational Teacher in different +2
schools of the State in the pay-scale of Rs.1500-2750 and since then, they
are working on the said post. It is the case of the petitioners that the pay-
scale of Rs.1500-2750 has been revised in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 as
evident from Bihar Extraordinary Gazette dated 08.02.1990. Consequently,
all the petitioners, whose appointments were made as Instructors and were
possessing the requisite criteria enshrined under Central Government
Guidelines for Instructors, their salary was revised in the scale of Rs.5000-
8000. Thereafter, the Finance Department has taken a resolution regarding
revision of scale of pay for the State Govt. Employees and the said
resolution has been published in the Jharkhand Extraordinary Gazette dated
28.02.2009, in which at Sl. No. 298, the revised pay-scale for Instructor has
been mentioned. The corresponding pay-scale for Rs.5000-8000/- has been
shown as Rs.9300-34800 and it has been clearly mentioned that the
Instructors, who are presently drawing the pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000/- will
be entitled for the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 with G.P. 4800, on fulfilment
of requisite qualification as mentioned in Central Govt. Guidelines for
Instructors/ Vocational Teachers. As the petitioners were fulfilling the
requisite qualification as mentioned in the Central Govt. guidelines of
Vocational Teachers/ Instructors, their pay-fixation was made by granting
the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 with G.P. 4800 and the said fixation was
also verified by the District Accounts Officer, Ranchi on 20.10.16. The
petitioners have also received 40% of the arrears amount.
5. It is the further case of the petitioners that though the said fixation
was done in favour of the petitioners in proper manner, all of a sudden, the
Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi issued a letter
bearing memo No. 1305/Vi., dated 18.04.2009 addressed to the Principal
Secretary, HRD Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi stating therein that
for Instructors, GP of Rs.4200/- is admissible and in such situation by
adding GP of Rs.4800, the fixation of pay will be wrong. Further, request
has been made to make verification and in case wrong fixation is done,
deduction be made from the 60% arrears amount in lump-sum in the current
financial years as excess payment made in their favour. In pursuance to the
said letter, the Director, Secondary Education, HRD Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi has issued an order bearing Memo No. 1361 dated
29.04.2009, addressed to all the Regional Deputy Directors. The District
Education Officers have also been issued memo No. 420 dated 05.05.2009,
whereby direction has been given to the respective Principals of Govt. High
Schools to ensure the compliance of letter dated 18.04.2009. It is the further
case of the petitioners that due to the said illegal decision taken by the
respondents, the petitioners have been put to irreparable loss and damages.
6. The petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order dated
18.04.2009, had approached this Court by way of W.P.(S). No. 2703 of
2009 along with W.P.(S). No. 2696 of 2009. The said writ petitions were
disposed of vide order dated 17.09.2013, directing the respondents to verify
individual service record and then come to a finding whether they fulfil the
required recruitment qualification, as prescribed under the Central Govt.
guidelines for their entitlement to the G.P. of Rs.4800/-. Against the said
order, the respondents preferred LPA No. 496 of 2015, however, the said
LPA was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2016. Thereafter, the respondent-
State has verified individual service records and passed order dated
26.09.2016, coming to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for
G.P. of Rs.4800/- in the light of resolution no. 660 dated 28.02.2009. After
the said order, the issue regarding entitlement of G.P. of Rs.4800/- the
petitioner has been set at rest and petitioners started getting the G.P of
Rs.4800/-. However, all of a sudden, vide Office Order No. 1940 dated
20.10.2017, the earlier order dated 26.09.2016 has been cancelled and the
direction given to fix the pay of petitioners to G.P. of Rs.4200/- w.e.f.
01.01.2006 with further direction to recover the excess amount paid to the
petitioners on account of grant of G.P. of Rs.4800/-.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that when the order passed in
W.P.(S). No. 2696 of 2009 was not complied, the petitioners preferred Cont.
Case (C). No. 559 of 2014 and however, said contempt was dropped on the
submission of respondent-State that the petitioners are entitled for G.P. of
Rs.4800/- and direction has also been issued to refund the amount if already
recovered. However, after dropping of the aforesaid contempt, the
respondent-State reviewed its own order and further directed to recover the
excess payment made in 24 equal installments. Thereafter, the petitioners
again preferred Cont. Case (C). No. 809 of 2017, which was dropped on
20.07.2018, on the ground that only revised and reasoned order has been
passed, therefore, the State has not violated the earlier order passed by the
Hon'ble Court. However, liberty was granted to the petitioners to assail the
said order. The order dated 20.10.2017 has also been challenged by the
other similarly situated persons in W.P.(S). No. 6492 of 2018 and the
Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 08.01.2018 was pleased to stay the order
dated 20.10.2017 and finally set aside the order. Thereafter, several other
writ petitions were also preferred and stay was granted in those cases too.
8. It is the further case of the petitioners that main ground for
rejecting the claim of the petitioners is letter No. 215 dated 11.05.2017,
issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna, by which it has
shown that the Vocational Instructors are getting G.P. of Rs.4200/-.
Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court for redressal of
their grievances.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
9. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of petitioners in
respective writ petitions.
10. It has been argued by Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for
the petitioners that action of the respondent-authorities in issuance of
impugned order No. 1940 dated 20.10.2017 is illegal, void, arbitrary and
without jurisdiction. The issue regarding grant of G.P. Rs.4800/- has
already been set at rest pursuant to the several orders passed by this Court
and the respondent-authorities cannot be allowed to unsettle the said issue.
Learned senior counsel further argues that the petitioners who have been
allowed G.P. of Rs.4800/- pursuant to the resolution No. 660 dated
28.02.2009, cannot be denied the said benefits now on the pretext of a
departmental letter No. 1305 dated 18.04.2009. Learned senior counsel
further argues that the respondent-authorities cannot be allowed to pass the
impugned order without following the principle of natural justice since no
show-cause notice was ever issued to the petitioners before issuance of the
impugned order, although by virtue of the impugned order, the rights of the
petitioners have been snatched. Learned counsel further argues that the right
of Promissory Estoppels shall not apply in this case stopping the authorities
to unsettle the issue which has already been set at rest and pursuant to that,
the petitioners have started getting the benefits of G.P. Rs.4800/- also in
view of the fact that petitioners fulfil the requisite criteria enshrined by
Central Government Guidelines for Instructors. Learned senior counsel
further argues that fixation of the pay of petitioners by adding G.P. of
Rs.4200/- is completely illegal and discriminatory in view of the fact that
the petitioners fulfil the requisite qualification as mentioned in Central
Govt. Guidelines for Instructors and the respondents are bound to grant the
GP. of Rs.4800/- instead of G.P. of Rs.4200/-.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS - STATE
11. Per contra counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents.
Justifying the impugned order, it has been argued by learned counsel for the
respondent-State that as per opinion of Departmental Planning-cum-
Finance, the G.P. admissible to the Instructors of +2 Schools is Rs.4200/-
instead of Rs.4800/-. The G.P. of Rs.4800/- is admissible to full-time
Vocational Teachers who were appointed possessing the Master degree in
concerned subject instead of degree/ diploma in concerned trade. Further,
an opinion was received from Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna
dated 11.05.2017, holding therein that Instructors working in +2 schools are
entitled for G.P. Rs.4200 according to 6th PRC. Since all the Instructors
including the petitioners were appointed in undivided State of Bihar in the
year 1993, therefore, they are entitled to the same scale which is being paid
by the State of Bihar. Learned counsel further argues that in compliance of
the Hon'ble Court's order, the respondent-State in consultation with and
opinion of the Department of Planning-cum-Finance, while rejecting the
claim of the petitioners, passed a reasoned order No. 1883 dated
25.11.2020. Learned counsel further argues that the respondent-State has
acted in compliance of the final order passed by the Division Bench in LPA
No. 496 of 2015, taking into consideration all the prevalent State Laws and
Rules, Guidelines of the Central Government and the reports of the Pay
Commissions. In the light of the above facts, circumstances and law, the
claim of the petitioners is not maintainable and the writ petitions are liable
to be dismissed.
12. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the
respondent-State place heavy reliance on the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of
Uttarakhand & Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
13. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the
parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is
of the considered view that cases of the petitioners needs consideration. It
is admitted case of the petitioners that they were appointed as Vocational
Education Instructor i.e. Vocational Teacher in different +2 schools of the
State in the year1993 and their pay-scale was Rs.1500-2750 and since
then, they are working on the said post. Thereafter, the pay-scale of
Rs.1500-2750 has been revised in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 as evident
from Bihar Extraordinary Gazette dated 08.02.1990. Since petitioners
were possessing the requisite criteria enshrined under Central Government
Guidelines for Instructors, their salary was revised in the scale of Rs.5000-
8000. In view of resolution of the Finance Department published in the
Jharkhand Extraordinary Gazette dated 28.02.2009, the revised pay-scale
for Instructor has been mentioned at Sl. No. 298, which is not in dispute.
The corresponding pay-scale for Rs.5000-8000/- has been shown as
Rs.9300-34800 and it has been clearly mentioned that those Instructors,
who are presently drawing the pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000/- will be entitled
for the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 with G.P. 4800, if they fulfil the
requisite qualification as per the Central Govt. Guidelines. Since
petitioners were fulfilling the requisite qualification, their pay-fixation was
made by granting the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 with G.P. 4800 and the
said fixation was also verified by the District Accounts Officer, Ranchi on
20.10.16. The petitioners have also received 40% of the arrears amount.
14. It is also apparent from office order No. 1866, dated 26.09.2016
of the Director, Secondary Education that similarly situated persons, who
moved the Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S). No. 2696 of 2009 and thereafter,
Cont. Case (C). No. 559 of 2014, were given the G.P. of Rs.4800/- vide
order dated 26.09.2016. Thereafter, the matter was reviewed vide memo
No. 1883 dated 25.11.2020 and the pay-scale of the Instructors was
determined as Rs.9300-34800 with G.P. Rs.4200/-.
15. It is the specific case of the petitioners that since they fulfil the
requisite qualification as prescribed by Central Govt. and hence, they are
entitled for G.P. of Rs.4800, which is as per the observations made by the
Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S). No. 2696 of 2009. The respondent-State also
preferred LPA No. 496 of 2015 against the order passed by this Court,
which stood dismissed.
16. Now, legal issue involved in this case to be determined by this
Court is whether after observation of this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2696 of
2009, affirmed in LPA No. 496 of 2015, it was open for the respondents to
review their own order. Admittedly, the order dated 26.09.2016 has been
reviewed by the same Authority, i.e. the Director, Secondary Education,
vide its order dated 25.11.2020. This amounts to overriding the findings of
the Hon'ble High Court as well as unsettling the issue which has already
been set at rest.
17. The said order is impermissible in the eyes of law. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of R.T. Rangachari Vs. Secretary of State, reported
in AIR 1937 PC 27 has held as follows:
"In a case in which after Government Officials, duly
competent and duly authorized in that behalf, have arrived
honestly at one decision, their successors in office, after the
decision has been acted upon and is in effective operation,
cannot purport to enter upon a reconsideration of the
matter and to arrive at another and totally different
decision."
The same view has been reiterated in case of State of M.P. Vs.
Mansinghra, reported in AIR 1958 MP 1413.
Further, in case of H.C. Suman and Another Vs. Rehabilitation
Ministry Employees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., New
Delhi and Others, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 485, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that "once a quasi-judicial order becomes final, it cannot be
reviewed by the same authority passing the same order unless such power
is conferred by statute on the authority".
The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S. Nagaraj and Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka and Anr., reported in 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 595, has observed as
under:-
"12....Law on the binding effect of an order passed by a
court of law is well settled. Nor there can be any conflict of
opinion that if an order had been passed by a court which had
jurisdiction to pass it then the error or mistake in the order can
be got corrected by a higher court or by an application for
clarification, modification or recall of the order and not by
ignoring the order by any authority actively or passively or
disobeying it expressly or impliedly. Even if the order has been
improperly obtained the authorities cannot assume on
themselves the role of substituting it or clarifying and modifying
it as they consider proper. In Halsbury's Laws of England
(Fourth Edn., Vol. 9 p. 35, para 55) the law on orders
improperly obtained is stated thus:
"The opinion has been expressed that the fact that
an order ought not to have been made is not a
sufficient excuse for disobeying it, that disobedience to
it constitutes a contempt, and that the party aggrieved
should apply to the court for relief from compliance
with the order."
Any order passed by a court of law, more so by
the higher courts and especially this court whose
decisions are declarations of law are not only entitled
to respect but are binding and have to be enforced and
obeyed strictly. No court much less an authority
howsoever high can ignore it. Any doubt or ambiguity
can be removed by the court which passed the order
and not by an authority according to its own
understanding."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kusheshwar Nath Pandey
Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2013) 12 SCC 508, wherein it has
been held that benefits given long back cannot be reviewed and altered to
the disadvantage of the employees even if it has wrongly been given and
there is no misrepresentation on behalf of the employees .
18. It is highly improbable for successor-in-office to review order of
predecessor-in-office and to pass a totally different order. Under the rules
of executive business, there is no such power conferred upon the authority
of the same designation to recall/ review the order of his/her predecessor-
in office on the same post. However, remedy lies in challenging the order
either before the higher authority or before Court of law. Taking action
suo motu which is punitive involving civil consequences without applying
principles of natural justice, is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India and as such, is fit to be quashed and set aside.
19. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that it is
open for the State to rectify its mistake and if some benefit has wrongly
been given to its employees, the same can be corrected/ reviewed and the
benefits so extended can be recovered at any stage. This contention of
learned counsel for the respondent-State is not accepted to this Court on
the ground that respondent-State out of its own cannot interpret the orders
of this Hon'ble Court. Once it is observed that after verification if it is
found that petitioners are having the requisite qualification, as prescribed
by the Central Government then they are entitled for the G.P. of Rs.4800/-.
When the same was also verified by the respondents themselves and
thereafter, the petitioners were extended the benefits of G.P. of Rs.4800/-
in compliance of Court's order, which was upheld upto the Division
Bench and as such, the same cannot be reopened and reviewed without
challenging the order passed by the Division Bench.
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
vrs. Pradip, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 144, has held that,
"17. ................... Administrative circulars and
government resolutions are subservient to legislative
mandate and cannot be contrary either to constitutional
norms or statutory principles. .............................."
21. Since already the impugned orders of recovery were stayed, the
amount, if any recovered, should be refunded to the petitioners.
22. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and
legal propositions, the impugned orders dated 20.10.2017; dated
18.04.2009; dated 25.11.2020; and dated 21.12.2020, are hereby quashed
and set aside. In view of the quashment of the aforesaid orders, the
petitioners are entitled for all the benefits of arrears of salary as well as
other benefits for which they are entitled for from the date by which the
earlier order dated 26.09.2016 was reviewed.
23. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these writ
petitions stand allowed.
24. Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
Kunal/-
