SUSHIL KUMAR SINGHAL Vs. PRAMUKH SACHIV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 23.3.2005 and 23.4.2005 passed by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively, contained in Annexure Nos. 3 & 5 to the writ petition, by which the pension of the petitioner has been wrongly revised and order for recovery of the alleged excess amount was passed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was retired on 31.12.2003 as Assistant Engineer, Upper Ganga Canal (Modernization) Division -1, Roorkee. At the time of his retirement, the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs.11,625/ - per month plus other admissible allowances as per Government Orders. It is alleged that the respondents never raised any objection regarding the salaries of the petitioner fixed from time to time. After the retirement the petitioner was getting the sum of Rs. 5813/ - plus dearness allowance as interim pension per month. It is alleged that the said fixation of pension was correct and to the satisfaction of the department. The interim pension of the petitioner was extended from July 2004 to December 2004 for a period of six months by respondents No. 3 in the month of July 2004. The petitioner also alleged that after a lapse of one and a half year the respondent No. 3, vide the impugned order dated 23.3.2005 reduced the salary Rs. 10,975/ - instead of Rs. 11,625/ -. The petitioner made representation before the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 on 28.3.2005 against the said order dated 23.3.2005 the respondent No. 3 also passed order for recovery of Rs. 99,522/ - from the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation dated 28.3.2005 against the order of recovery which was also rejected by the respondent No. 4 on 10.5.2005 without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. It is alleged that the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 arbitrarily and malafide intention without following the correct procedure of law and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned orders were passed which is bad in the eye of law.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 4 it is submitted that respondent No. 3 has rightly re -fixed the pay of the petitioner right from 01.01.1986 and 01.01.1996 and thus rightly arrived at the last pay at Rs. 10,975/ - on the date of his retirement. On examination of the pension case of the petitioner it was found that earlier due to wrong pay fixation the petitioner was paid excess amount of salary and allowances, which is recoverable from him. It was also contended that in view of Fundamental Rule 19 of the Financial Hand Book, Volume II, Part 2 to 4, petitioners salary for the post shall be fixed by the competent authority and in the light of these facts petitioners pay fixation as revised by the respondent No. 3 has no illegality. Only the defects of the wrong pay fixation have been removed by the revised pay fixation order dated 23.3.2005. It is contended that the Service book of the petitioners shows that on 1.1.1986 on the basis of pay scale Rs. 1640 -2900/ - the basic pay of the petitioner was to be Rs. 1880/ - instead of Rs. 1940/ - since on 1.7.1982 the petitioner was granted selection grade. According to Para -3 (8) of G.O. dated 3.6.1989 read with G.O. dated 31.5.1990 it is clear that one increment will not be admissible to those employees who had already been granted selection grade. Further the petitioner should have been granted promotional pay scale on 1.7.1988 on completion of 16 years of service and his basic pay accordingly fixed at Rs. 2200/ -. But the petitioner was wrongly granted promotional pay scale from 1.2.1988 and his basic pay was wrongly fixed at Rs. 2275/ -.