MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing .Counsel. With the consent of the parties, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally at admission stage.

(2.) The Petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Employment Officer through Public Service Commission on 12.11.1976. After ten years of satisfactory service, he was given selection grade and posted as District Employment Officer on 11.11.1986. By order dated 31.10.2001 with effect from 12.11.1992, the Petitioner was granted first selection grade alongwith other persons in furtherance of Government Order dated 2.12.2000 after completion of fourteen years of satisfactory service. Again, he was granted second selection grade in terms of the Government Order dated 2.9.2002 after completion of 24 years of continuous service. The Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.2006. At the time of retirement, he was holding the office of Regional Employment Officer. By the impugned order dated 12.5.2008, passed by the opposite party No. 2, an amount of Rs. 2,00,586/- has been deducted from the gratuity of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner was given excess amount by incorrect calculation by the officials during the course of employment. Withholding the amount of Rs. 2,00,586/-, rest of the gratuity was released in favour of the Petitioner by the impugned order.

(3.) While assailing the impugned order, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon 486 Brahma Lal v. Union of India and Ors., ; State of U.P. v. Kalu,2004 22 LCD 490; Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 1994 2 SCC 521; Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra v. Gorakhpur University and Ors.,1998 16 LCD 1277; R. Kapurv. Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication) Income Tax and Anr., 1994 6 SCC 589; Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India and Anr., 1981 1 SCC 449 and submits that the Respondents have got no right to recover the amount paid during the course of employment, that too after lapse of almost three years. Submission is that the calculation with regard to payment of higher pay-scale was done by the Respondents and their staff themselves with due communication to the Petitioner. Accordingly, it has been submitted that no recovery could have been made from the Petitioner's gratuity by the Respondents while passing the impugned order.