NIRMALA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed on 18/6/1987 to the post of Asst. Professor. When the respondent was not granting higher pay scale and selection grade pay to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble court and in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court order dtd. 23/4/12, respondent no.1 has granted senior pay scale w.e.f. 18/6/1995 and selection grade pay w.e.f. 18/6/2000. The petitioner stood retired on 31/5/2022, and the respondents have not sanctioned pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefit to the petitioner. This Hon'ble court vide order dtd. 5/10/23, asked the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner and the respondent has decided the representation of the petitioner vide order dtd.. 20/10/2023. Thereafter, this Hon'ble Court vide order dtd. 7/11/2023 directed the OIC to remain present and in retaliation, the respondent withheld the gratuity of the petitioner vide order dtd. 8/11/2023. The respondent vide another order dtd. 9/11/2023, modified the order dtd. 20/3/2013, and the senior grade pay has been sanctioned from 1/4/2000 and the selection grade has been sanctioned from 1/10/2001. Further, the respondent no. 4 has issued recovery order dtd. 5/12/2023 against the petitioner and has made a false statement before this Hon'ble Court on 5/12/2023 that all the dues have been paid to the petitioner. Since the orders issued by the respondents are illegal, inoperative, and without jurisdiction, the present petition is submitted for quashment of those orders as well as for further directions to pay all the dues payable to the petitioner within a specified time along with interest calculated @ 12 per annum.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed WP No.1101/2010(s) challenging the order dtd. 9/10/2009 whereby the representation of the petitioner for higher pay scale/selection grade pay scale with effect from 18/6/1987 and 27/7/1998 was denied and he also sought a direction to pay all the arrears and differences. The said petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for higher pay scale with effect from 1993 and for selection grade with effect from 27/7/1998 and it was further held that the same could not have been denied on the basis of uncommunicated ACRs. The respondents were directed to carry out the aforesaid directions within a period of three months positively. Thereafter, the respondents passed the order dtd. 9/11/2023 which has been challenged in the present petition. He also referred the order passed by this Court in WP No.2852/2023 disposed off on 5/12/2023, in which it was directed that the claims of the petitioner be settled as the PPO has been issued by the District Pension Officer on 30/11/2023 for the release of 100% pension. In regard to the other claims i.e. insurance, leave encashment etc, the same was already paid and, therefore, the same was not adjudicated.

(3.) The respondents have filed the reply and submitted that the petitioner has been paid the dues, except gratuity which was held up because of the recovery due to the new fixation. It is argued that the recovery has been ordered on account of excess payment made in basic salary to the petitioner at the time of pay fixation of the petitioner's pay on 18/5/1988. The petitioner was entitled to get pay of Rs.2200.00+DA instead of Rs.2275.00+DA due to the date of completion of the probation period on 1/10/1990. She was given excess payment of salary to the tune of Rs.2275.00/-, and this excess payment was given in increasing order from 16/8/1988 to 1/1/2005. The Treasury has raised an objection regarding the wrong fixation of the pay of the petitioner.