Shri Baiarbor Rajee vs . State Of Meghalaya & Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 85 Meg

 Serial No. 22
 Regular List
                        HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                              AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 9 of 2021
                                             Date of Decision: 21.03.2022

Shri Baiarbor Rajee                  Vs.        State of Meghalaya & Anr.

Coram:
                 Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge


Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s)            :         Mr. N. Syngkon, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)            :         Mr. S. Dey, SC (For R 1&2)

i)     Whether approved for reporting in                   Yes/No
       Law journals etc:

ii)    Whether approved for publication                    Yes/No
       in press:




                  JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. Heard Mr. N. Synkon, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. S. Dey, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2.

2. The writ petitioner who is serving as Senior Microscopist in

the office of the District Malaria Officer, Government of Meghalaya, East

Khasi Hills, Shillong is aggrieved with the letter dated 11.01.2021,

wherein it is indicated that the Basic Pay of the petitioner had been

wrongly fixed for the period w.e.f. 7.10.2010 to 31.12.2020. The said

letter further directed for corrections of the petitioner's Basic Pay at Rs.

43100/- per month with effect from January, 2021 instead of Rs. 44,400/-

per month.

3. Mr. N. Syngkon, learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that with the issuance of the letter, it is imminent that the

respondents will seek recovery of the amount which has been received due

to the wrong fixation of pay. The learned counsel has also placed the

judgment in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih

(Whitewasher) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC, to buttress his

submissions that such recovery on a wrong fixation of pay is

impermissible in law. He therefore, prays that directions be issued to

restraint the respondents from recovering the excess amount so paid.

4. Mr. S. Dey, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No.

1 and 2, at the outset submits that the writ petition is premature as the letter

impugned is an internal communication, which copy of the same has only

been marked to the petitioner. He further submits that the respondents

have not embarked upon any exercise to recover the excess pay drawn to

warrant that the writ petitioner approach this Court at this stage. It is also

submitted that the writ petitioner has suppressed the materials which are

crucial to the case, inasmuch as, an undertaking has been given by the writ

petitioner himself, to make good any excess amount that has been drawn.

It is further submitted that the judgment as cited by the writ petitioner will

not be applicable in the instant case, as there is no pleading that hardship

will be caused to the writ petitioner in the event of the recovery of pay,

and further, it is not that the writ petitioner is on the verge of retirement.

In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents has

relied on the following judgments :-

i) Ulagappa and Others vs. Divisional commissioner, Mysore and Others reported in (2001) 10 SCC 639

ii) K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481

iii) Union of India vs. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 223

iv) Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417

v) State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334

5. In conclusion the learned Standing counsel for the

respondents submits that the writ petition deserves no consideration at this

stage, and that the same be dismissed.

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and examined

the materials on record. As submitted, it appears that the fixation of pay

in respect of the writ petitioner had been sought to be corrected by the

impugned letter. It is also the submitted that as on date there has been no

whisper of any action initiated, for recovery of the excess amount drawn.

The fact that the undertaking is also present which has been produced by

the learned Standing counsel for the respondents by way of an affidavit

cannot be overlooked.

7. Be that as it may, the facts as it pertains today reflects that the

writ petition is premature, inasmuch as, no action for recovery has been

initiated as yet by the respondents.

8. In view of the matter, nothing remains for consideration and

the writ petition being premature is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

Meghalaya 21.03.2022 "V. Lyndem-PS"