BABULAL PACHORI Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are retired time-keepers. They have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order dated 22.4.2010 (Annexure P-1). It is further prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents not to make any recovery from the pension/retiral dues of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners were working as time-keeper. Their initial pay scale was Rs.445-635. A petition was filed before this Court (M.P.No. 3885/1986). The said Misc.Petition was transferred to M.P.State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called as "Tribunal") and was re-registered as TA No. 993/1988 (L.N.Upadhyay and others vs. State of MP and others). Shri Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel submits that the present petitioners also filed a matter, which was registered as TA No.995/1988 (P.R.Shinde and 97 others vs. State of MP and others). The Tribuan passed its basic order in TA No. 993/1988 on 6.11.1998 (Annexure P/3). In petitioners' case, i.e., TA No. 995/1988, the Tribunal merely followed the basic order passed in TA No. 993/1988. By taking this Court to the findings of the Tribunal, it is submitted that the Tribunal made it clear that the petitioners are entitled to get the pay scale of Rs.515-800, the scale which was attached to the post of Amin.

(3.) Learned senior counsel heavily relied on consequential order passed in the name of the Governor. By relying on the order dated 12.7.1999 (Annexure P/5), it is submitted that a conscious decision was taken by Government not to prefer any appeal against the orders aforesaid of the Tribunal. Thereafter, by order dated 24.10.1999, the pay scale of Rs.515-800 was directed to be released in favour of the present petitioners. It is submitted that after having taken a conscious decision not to prefer any appeal, the Government is bound by the principle of "estoppal" and cannot act contrary to their decision aforesaid. It is submitted that the respondents have committed an error in making an effort to reduce the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs.515-800 to Rs. 445-635. To elaborate, Shri Chaturvedi submits that the pay scale of Rs.445-635 was revised as Rs. 2750-4400 whereas the pay scale of Rs.515-800 was revised as Rs. 3050-4590. It is submitted that the petitioners retired on attaining the age of superannuation sometime in the year 2007. They received their retiral dues/pension on the basis of last pay drawn in the scale of Rs.515-800, revised as Rs.3050-4590. The respondents cannot reduce the said pension. He submits that pension and retiral dues are not bounty. They are outcome of long sincere and efficient services rendered to the department. Pension is deferred payment of salary and, therefore, it is a property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.