NARAIN JASHANMAL MENGHRAJANI Vs. SENIOR AO (PENSION)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the following reliefs including the amended reliefs which read as under:-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was working with the respondent right from 14th February, 1957 and the date of the birth of the petitioner is 10.11.1938. After serving at various stages in the employment, lastly the petitioner retired as an Assistant Traffic Manager (Class-I) from the Kandla Port Trust on 30.11.1996. The petitioner was granted benefit, on account of reaching the age of superannuation as stated above throughout without any hindrance. Prior to the post of Assistant Traffic Manager, the petitioner was working as a Traffic Inspector on adhoc basis and from 13.02.1992, the petitioner was regularized in the said post which was undisputedly a Class-III cadre post. The petitioner was then promoted as an Assistant Traffic Manager and worked as such upto 30.11.1996 on adhoc basis and then was made permanent with effect from 02.08.1996. During the adhoc period on the said post of Assistant Traffic Manager, the petitioner was given break of one or two, however, was receiving the salary for the break period of Traffic Inspector cadre i.e. Class-III. The pension of the petitioner was fixed as if the petitioner was belonging to the Class-III cadre i.e. the Traffic Inspector and the details of calculations of the consolidated pension is attached with the petition by indicating that from the date of the retirement, the pension was fixed on the basis of the salary drawn by the petitioner at the time of retirement. The petitioner from November, 1996 i.e. from the date of the retirement was regularly receiving the pension and all of a sudden almost after a period of 21 years without granting any opportunity, without prior intimation and without even notice, a letter came to be issued on 01.11.2017 along with the proposed recovery chart and was conveyed that an excess amount was paid to the petitioner in the total sum receivable by way of pension, which has resulted into a wrong consolidation of the pension to the petitioner. Hence, over payment to the tune of Rs.3,37,725/- was directed to be deposited through the cheque in favour of the Kandla Port Trust Superannuation Scheme and submit the same in pension section, else, the same will be recovered from the dearness amount of the petitioner and it was also informed that till full recovery is effected, the petitioner will be paid minimum pension of Rs.3,900/- per month instead of regular pension. This has been issued for the first time, after a period of 21 years, on 01.11.2017. The petitioner, accordingly submitted a letter on 24.11.2017 and sought certain details and information as the petitioner had retired way back in the year 1996 and is of advanced age of around more than 80 years. According to the petitioner, instead of applying the relevant rules and the detailed information, which have been sought, a further letter was received from the respondent on 30.01.2018 directing the petitioner to make the payment of lump sum amount of Rs.3,37,725/- which was paid in excess from 01.01.1997. The said letter was also responded by the petitioner and again approached the respondent authority by a communication dated 12.03.2018, but the same has not been attended so far. It is further the case of the petitioner that despite the fact that a representation has been made by the petitioner, to the utter surprise, another communication came to be received by the petitioner indicating that now a sum of Rs.5,94,534/- is to be recovered from the petitioner with effect from 01.01.1997 to 31.03.2018. By giving details inter se between the petitioner and the respondent authority, ultimately, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition for challenging the said action. Since there was a specific stand taken by the petitioner on prior recovery being sought, no opportunity was given, no procedure was followed, no information was provided, and after a period of 21 years, step is contemplated. The Court issued notice on 02.05.2018 and considering the age of the petitioner being 82 years, with the concurrence and request of both the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is paid urgent attention and today the same is taken by for final disposal.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. P.C. Chaudhari appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned action is initiated after almost a period of 21 years and on that count alone, the same may not be allowed to be precipitated any further. It has been submitted by learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari that the petitioner has been superannuated long back in the month of November, 1996 and for the first time, without granting any opportunity, without prior intimation, and without hearing the petitioner, straightway after a period of 21 years, in November, 2017, the first communication was sent on 01.11.2017, reflecting on page 33 and thereafter without considering the stand of the petitioner, the respondent authority went on insisting upon the recovery and so much so, that unilaterally the recovery is already initiated and in the month of December, 2018, even the total pension was stopped. This autocratic exercise of power by the respondent authority is in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and on this count alone, the same be quashed. It has further been submitted by learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari that there was neither any mistake committed by the petitioner nor any misrepresentation was made by the petitioner, and the pension is fixed altogether by different department to which the petitioner was not a party in the said fixation and therefore, for no fault on the part of the petitioner, at this age, the petitioner is being harassed by the authority after a period of 21 years and, therefore, the action on the part of the respondent authority is absolutely unjust and arbitrary, tilted with mala fides, hence, the same be quashed and set aside.