MOHD. JANBAZ ALAM Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working on the post of Junior Engineer under the respondents and has since retired on 30/6/2014 from the office of Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Gorakhpur. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a liability was fixed against the petitioner on the ground of excess payment of 99,856.00. The aforesaid liability Rs. 99,856.00. The aforesaid liability is in respect of the year 2011-12 for construction of drain and road under Dr. Ambedkar project scheme for an estimate of Rs. 99,856.00. The aforesaid liability 80.75 lakhs. Against the aforesaid estimated value, the financial and administrative approval was accorded to the tune of Rs. 99,856.00. The aforesaid liability 56.15 lakhs and in pursuance thereof, a contract was executed on 12/9/2011. After completion of the contract, the total payment made was 55,49,856/-. The respondents have Rs. 99,856.00. The aforesaid liability disputed the difference of amount of 99,856/- after taking Rs. 99,856.00. The aforesaid liability measurement. The petitioner came to know about the aforesaid liability been fixed after his retirement thereafter the petitioner has moved an application before the Executive Engineer on 12/3/2016 giving details of circumstances in which the difference arisen and the amount should not be realised. It is further submitted that the petitioner has regularly represented the respondent authorities however the grievance of the petitioner was not decided and retirement dues after retirement of petitioner was not paid. After the retirement of the petitioner on 8/9/2016 another order was passed by the respondent No.4 claiming wrong fixation of promotional pay scale since 1/12/2008 and as such, the difference of amount of Rs. 99,856.00. The aforesaid liability 3,10,022.00 was sought to be recovered. It is further submitted that thereafter on 2/5/2017, an order has been passed by the Additional Director, Treasury and pension, Varanasi Region, Varanasi directing adjustment of 4,09,878/- from the Rs. 99,856.00. The aforesaid liability retirement dues of the petitioner. By means of impugned order, adjustment of 4,09,878/- is being made from the retiral dues Rs. 99,856.00. The aforesaid liability of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted representation dtd. 13/4/2017 before the respondent authorities against the order dtd. 8/9/2016. Petitioner further filed a representation dtd. 1/4/2017 before the respondent authorities against the recovery of 99,856.00. Rs. 99,856.00. The aforesaid liability

(3.) It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that payment of excess salary was made in the year 2008 and aforesaid wrong fixation was not detected by the respondent and they have proceeded to initiate the recovery proceeding after retirement of the petitioner on 30/6/2014. It is further submitted that the retiral dues have been released, however now the amount is being adjusted from the pension. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the petitioner was in any manner involved in the fixation of third ACP nor any fraud or misrepresentation has been attributed to the petitioner in respect of wrong fixation. He has further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to protection in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015)