HIRAMANI PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri N.D. Shukla for the Petitioner, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1.

(2.) The Petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from the post of Head Clerk on 31st January, 2006. However, by means of the impugned order dated 27th December, 2005, which was communicated to the Petitioner just a few days prior to his retirement i.e. 2nd January, 2006 Respondents informed him that his salary was wrongly fixed giving the details of his fixation since 1st August, 1978 till 1st January, 2005 and therefore the said pay fixation has been corrected making his salary as on 1.1.2005 as Rs. 5,375 and thereby directing for recovery of Rs. 40,216/- from the retiral dues payable to the Petitioner.

(3.) It is contended that impugned order has been passed without any show-cause notice or opportunity to the Petitioner and even otherwise so far as recovery is concerned, the same being not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the Petitioner cannot be recovered.