(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P/1, dated 12.10.2015 whereby the respondents have taken two decisions, firstly in reducing the pension payable to the petitioner from from Rs.8,110 to Rs.7,875/-. So far as the second part is concerned, the same is in respect of recovery of an amount of 58,145/- from the petitioner on account of the certain erroneous pay fixation. It also reveals that the said amount of Rs.58,145/- has already been recovered from the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner.
(2.) According to the petitioner, so far as the reduction in the pension is concerned, he has not been provided sufficient opportunity of defence before the pension has been reduced. He further submits that since opportunity of hearing has not been provided, it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice . According to the petitioner even if it is for rectification or reduction in the pension, even then the authorities should have taken the petitioner into confidence. So far as the recovery part is concerned, the Counsel of the Petitioner submits that the said act is impermissible in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih, 2015 4 SCC 334. It was further contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Class-III post holder and the action of recovery has been initiated subsequent to his superannuation which also would make the recovery impermissible.
(3.) The stand of the respondent at this juncture is that it is only after retirement of the petitioner when the pension was being settled it was detected of a wrong fixation of pay made to the petitioner and the reduction in the pension has arisen only on account of the said wrong fixation. According to the counsel for the respondents, the department always has a right for rectification of an error and it is this rectification that has been carried out resulting in the reduction of pension is concerned.