H UTTARAMMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGHARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed legality and validity of the action of the respondents and order dated 20/10/03 (Annexure P/4) by which the respondents have refixed the pay of the petitioner since his initial date of appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530/- and recovered an amount of Rs. 1,26,906/- from the Group Insurance Fund and retrial dues payable to the petitioner-widow on account of death of her husband. The petitioner has also prayed for directions to pay interest @ 18%.

(2.) Brief relevant facts necessary for determination of controversy involved in the petition are that the petitioner's husband was appointed on the post of Crawler Operator, Grade II vide order dated 28/06/89 (Annexure P/7) in the pay scale of Rs. 975-1650/-. The pay of the petitioner was also fixed in the said pay scale as per pay fixation (Annexure P/2) by the Sub-Divisional Officer. All through his service career till his death, the husband of the petitioner was granted pay in the said pay scale. The petitioner's husband-H. Krishnayya died unfortunate death on 12/07/03. However, thereafter, when for the purposes of fixation of pension, the case of the deceased employee was scrutinized by the pension authorities i.e. Joint Director, Pension, he passed an order on 20/10/03 directing fixation of pay to the petitioner in a lower pay scale of Rs. 950-1530/- vide Annexure P/4. On account of that fixation of pension, the respondents computed Rs. 1,26,906/- as excess payment which was recovered from the retrial dues/group insurance fund payable to the petitioner. It is this action which is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondents is highly arbitrary, illegal and in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. It is argued that the husband of the petitioner, right from his first day of appointment, vide appointment order dated 28/06/89 (Annexure P/1), was granted pay scale of Rs. 975-1650/- and he was paid salary in that particular pay scale for 14 years till he died on 12/07/03. Therefore, at such belated stage, it was not open for the respondents to re-fix the pay of the deceased husband of the petitioner. He further contended that as the retrial dues were payable to the petitioner as beneficiary, the petitioner was entitled to opportunity of hearing before such action was taken. It is also urged that present is not a case of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the husband of the petitioner. Respondents on their own understanding, with regard to applicability of pay scale for the post of Crowler Operator Grade II have granted particular pay scale. Therefore, at such belated stage, that too after the death of the husband of the petitioner, such recovery of excess payment was not permissible even if it is assumed that in the beginning, a higher pay scale was erroneously granted to the husband of the petitioner.