Virender Singh, C.J.—Aggrieved of order dated 09.07.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No.870 of 2013, whereby challenge to the decision taken in the meeting of the Governing Council of Jharkhand Govt. Mini Tool Room and Training Centre, Ranchi reducing the scale of pay of the writ petitioner-respondent (hereinafter referred to as respondent) succeeded, the instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent who had applied for the post of Technician Grade-I, was appointed on 02.07.2009 on the post of . Technician Grade-II. The terms and conditions of the appointment were contained in letter dated 02.07.2009. The respondent joined the said post of Technician Grade-II on 13.08.2009 and his contractual appointment was extended for a further period of one year, as communicated to him through letter dated 14.10.2011. The contractual period was to lapse on 31.05.2012. The respondent was paid salary in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200/- (Pay Band -I) for the period between June, 2011 to May, 2012. The Contract Extension Order dated 14.10.2011 recites that salary has been revised in pay-scale of Rs.5200-20200/- (Pay Band -I).
3. The learned counsel for the appellant referring to the undertaking given by the respondent, that the respondent gave an undertaking that if any discrepancy is found in his pay structure at any point of time, the same shall be adjusted from his salary and he would not object to the same, contends that once it was found that erroneously the revised pay-scale was mentioned in the Contract Extension Order, the same was rightly corrected in the meeting of the Governing Council held on 28.09.2012 and recovery effected.
4. As noticed above, the employment of the respondent was purely contractual. The Contract Extension Order dated 14.10.2011 terminates the contractual appointment after 31.05.2012. The decision of the Governing Council is dated 28.09.2012. The said decision was taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent. Not only that, the said decision was taken about four months after the contract lapsed. The Contract Extension Order, a copy of which has been annexed at Page-41 of the instant Letters Patent Appeal, discloses no reason for unilaterally modifying the terms and conditions of further engagement of . the respondent. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that, had the Contract Extension Order contained a lower pay-scale it was open to the respondent to refuse offer of extension of his engagement, however, today after the contract agreement lapsed on 31.05.2012 the respondent cannot exercise such an option. The learned Single Judge has rightly held as under :
"Having considered the relevant materials on record, in the light of the submissions of the parties and the stand of the respondent no.2, it appears that the respondent no.2 had while issuing the contract extension order consciously fixed scale of pay of the petitioner at Rs.5200-20200/- for a period of one year from 01.06.2011-31.05.2012. The petitioner in any way was not at fault for such fixation. The decision at Annexure-5 appears to have been taken later in September 2012 to re-fix the scale of pay, which should not have been made applicable so as to recover an amount paid to the petitioner on the basis of an order of extension of the contract issued by the respondent no.2, Principal of the Jharkhand Government Mini Tool Room and Training Centre. Therefore, if the said amount of Rs.30,312/- has been recovered from the petitioner in that fashion, the respondent no.2 would return the same within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
5. Viewed thus, we find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 09.07.2015. The instant Letters Patent Appeal, devoid of merits, is dismissed.
