1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(c) Civil service‑- ‑‑‑‑ Salary drawn in excess on basis of erroneous notification‑Reco very of arrears of excess amount drawn in good faith‑‑‑Held harsh. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑In this case all the eight appellants are serving as Science Teachers in different schools of Sahiwal District since before 1st June 1977 and all of them possess qualifications of B. Sc. (2nd Division), B. Ed. It is contended that by virtue of an amendment in the Punjab Education Service (Non‑Gazetted Teaching Posts) Pay Revision Rules issued vide Punjab Govt. Notification dated 27th October 1972 the Senior English Teachers with qualifications of B. Sc. 2nd Division were allowed benefits of two advance increments. The appellants who possessed the aforesaid qualifications were subsequent ly granted two advance increments with effect from 1st June 1979 and started receiving salary accordingly. The appellants are aggrieved of a notification of the Finance Department of 24th February, 1973 whereby the words "B. Sc. 2nd Division" were substituted by words `M. Sc. 2nd Division, in the earlier notification of 27th October, 1972 with the result that the appellants became ineligible for two advance increments which were allowed to them earlier.

2. The above factual position is conceded by the learned Govern ment Pleader. It is, however, submitted that the notification dated 24th February, 1973 merely sought to rectify a clerical error which had crept in the original notification. The relevant context of the notifica tion sought to be amended dealt with the Master's Degree but inadver tently B. Sc. 2nd Division was printed instead of M. Sc. 2nd Division. It is urged that the mistake was so patently clerical that it did not create any vested right and the authority issuing the original notification had the powers to rectify the same and as such it was contended that the present appeal had no merit. The learned Govt. Pleader has also raised preliminary objection on limitation which is going to be deciding factor in this case. It is contended that the appellants are aggrieved of the Finance Department's notification dated 24th February, 1973, whereas limitation of six months with effect from the establishment of the appro priate Tribunal, which was 22nd July, 1974, expired somewhere in January 1975. It is thus contended that the appeal filed on 1st August 1975 is badly time barred and needs to be dismissed on that account. The grounds for condonation of delay set forth in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act are absolutely vague and show no plausible reason for this delay. We find much weight in this contention of the learned Government Pleader. The only ground advanced in the applica tion for condonation of delay is‑‑‑ "The petitioner could not file petition in time due to unavoidable circumstances," Above is the hopelessly inadequate and perfunctory explanation of this collosal delay and the appeal merits dismissal on the ground of limitation.

3. On merits also we find that appellants have no case. The relevant text in the original notification of 27th October 1972 may be reproduced with advantage :‑ "One advance increment for M. A. (2nd Division), two advance increments for B. Se. (2nd Division) and three advance incre ments for M. Ed., M. Ed., (Tech.) or M. A. in Education in the ordinary time scale." Insertion of B. Sc. 2nd Division in the above context brings about the startling result that after allowing one advance increment for M. A. 2nd Division, two advance increments become admissible for B. Sc. 2nd Division which is admittedly a lower qualification. M. Sc. 2nd Division clearly falls in the correct sequence of the above notification inasmuch as that M. A. 2nd Division shall be eligible for one advance increment, M. Sc. 2nd Division for two and M. Ed. M. Ed., (Tech.) and M. A. in Education for three advance increments. This was thus a patently clerical error which the authority issuing the original notification had the power to rectify and we find no illegality in that.

4. We are also not impressed by the arguments of the appellants that the impugned notification dated 24th February, 1973 purported to amend the notification of 22nd October, 1972 so that it was not relatable to the notification dated 27th October, 1972 under which the appellants had availed of the benefit of two advance increments. The number of the notification which it seeks to amend has been correctly incorporated in the impugned notification dated 24th February, 1973 and the difference lies only in the date inasmuch as it shows "22" in place of "27" as the day of the month. No notification of the same number and dated 22nd October, 1972 has been produced before us. Moreover the number of notification and description of the portion sought to be amended is exactly traceable in the notification dated 27th October, 1972 so that the difference of date is merely another clerical error and such misdescriptions did not invalidate the notification dated 24th February, 1973 Piao Gul's case (P L D 1960 S C 307). The appeal is thus dismissed on the point of limitation as well as on merits. Before parting with the case we may however observe that it appears rather harsh to recover the arrears of excess salary drawn by the appellants as they had drawn the salary in good faith in pursuance of the duly notified amendment in the Gazette and the errors lies with the Government. Appeal dismissed.