VIJAY GOPALRAO KAPADI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 19.05.2010 and consequentially, has sought direction upon respondent authority to refund the amount unlawfully recovered of Rs.80,691/- with 12% interest on the said amount.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined the Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited on 04.02.1984 and the petitioner retired on 30.04.2007 from the Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited as Assistant Manager at Vadodara Branch. The recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission came to be implemented with effect from 01.01.2006 and by the impugned order, on 19.05.2010, the respondent No.1 sought recovery of an amount of difference between what has been paid under the old Rules and the amount entitled under the recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission. Resultantly, an amount of Rs.79,991/- for gratuity and Rs.700/- for Provident Fund, totaling around Rs.80,691/-, sought to be recovered. This recovery has been effected unilaterally from the arrears of Sixth Pay Commission. On 31.08.2012, the recovery of Rs.79,991/- came to be made and only after the said exercise, the petitioner was paid the benefits of leave encashment. It appears from the record that respondent No.1 vide communication dated 30.11.2012 informed respondent No.3 that as recovery of amount of gratuity has taken place, the petitioner now may be paid the amount of leave encashment and subsequently, an amount of Rs.700/- by way of difference in Provident Fund was recovered on 05.01.2013. This has taken place unilaterally after almost a period of more than five years from the date of retirement.

(3.) This petition was entertained by issuing notice on 08.03.2016, and thereafter, vide order dated 21.06.2017 relying upon the decision of the Apex Court, the Court was pleased to direct the respondent authority to deposit the amount, which has been recovered while admitting the petition. The said order dated 21.06.2017 reads as under: