RAGHUVIRSINH UMEDSINH KARMARIA Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent employer (District Panchayat) of paying pension and other retirement benefits, considering the basic pay of Rs. 8650/-, though the petitioner ought to have been paid his dues considering Rs. 9000/- as his monthly basic salary, which he was drawing.

(2.) Rule. Ms. Mandavia, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent District Panchayat.

(3.) Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner has made the following submissions. 3. 1 It is submitted that the petitioner was working as Extension Officer (Agriculture) under the Administrative control of the District Panchayat, Bharuch. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2004. It is submitted that prior to retirement of the petitioner, the District Development Officer had passed an order on 16.09.2003 (at page-17) reducing the pay of the petitioner by two increments without future effect. It is pointed out that the consequential recovery was also made and an entry to that effect was made in the service book of the petitioner (Annexure C page-20). 3. 2 It is pointed out that the said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar but the said appeal (No.256 of 2006) was dismissed on 13.07.2007 (page 30-33). It is submitted that since the petitioner had retired in the year 2004, he did pursue the matter thereafter, however even if the punishment order dated 16.09.2003 is accepted as it is, the same was without future effect and the pension of the petitioner ought to have been calculated and paid considering the reduced pay. 3. 3 It is submitted that the respondent District Panchayat had already calculated the pension considering Rs. 9,000/- as the basic pay of the petition, however the Audit Authority took objection and considering the said objection, respondent Panchayat paid the terminal dues considering Rs. 8650/- as the pay of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner would receive less pension all throughout his life and therefore the said action be interfered with.