STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. GHANSHYAM SWAROOP SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present intra-Court appeal filed by the appellants-State under section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the order dated 21-3-2007 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5998/2005 (Ghanshyam Swaroop Sharma Vs. State of M. P. and others) has been called in question.

(2.) IT is worth mentioning that aforesaid writ petition was filed by said ghanshyam Swaroop Sharma (respondent herein), who got superannuated from the services of the State Government on the post of Deputy superintendent of Police w. e. f. 1-7-2002. As put forth before the learned Single judge, according to the writ petitioner, on 18-9-2001 one annual increment was added to his basic pay and his salary was increased from Rs. 9375/- to Rs. 9650/-vide Annexure P-2 to the writ petition and the gross salary along with the basic salary of Rs. 9650/- was fixed. The writ petitioner was drawing Rs. 14,467/- at the time of his retirement. A dispute arose at the time of retirement on three counts, as according to the writ petitioner, the pension was calculated at the basic salary of Rs. 8,125/- per month; gratuity amount was also wrongly calculated by the respondents-appellants at Rs. 1,94,387/- and that a sum of Rs. 62,575/- was deducted from the gratuity amount without assigning any reason. Being aggrieved by which, the writ petitioner ultimately approached this Court in W. P. No. 5998/2005 (S) for issue of a direction to the respondents to re-assess the pensionary benefits and gratuity amount taking into consideration the last salary drawn by him and accordingly release the pensionary benefits and gratuity amount according to the rules. A further direction against the respondents therein to refund the deducted amount of gratuity and give all other benefits including interest was also sought.

(3.) AS is evident from the record, it was urged on behalf of the appellants, who were respondents in the said writ petition that the pay fixation of the original petitioner was properly made on retirement from various posts. It was further stated that after the formation of Special Branch Police, the State government had taken a policy decision on 22-8-1984 that officers upto the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police would be given posting on one step promotion in the Special Branch and such upgraded posts were non-cadre posts and were to persist only upto the repatriation of the employees to the original post held by them in the parent department. It was only conditional that the benefit would stop on their obtaining higher pay scale in the parent department. Thereafter, there was a change in the policy decision on 22-1-1985, which laid down a condition that in case a person joins the Special Branch he would get the pay scale as original post, however, would be entitled to get an increase of rs. 250/- as a special pay in lieu of serving in a special branch and the post in the special branch was converted into cadre post subject to the condition. Said circular dated 22-1-1985 is Annexure R-2 on record of the writ petition. However, the department of the special branch continued to provide higher pay as per the previous order as well as requested the State Government to lift the limit of Rs. 250/- which was finally turned down by order (Annexure R-4) to the return filed by respondents in the writ petition. It was refuted on behalf of respondents that promotion of the petitioner was a regular promotion on the post of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was also stated that the post was under one step promotion scheme and under the same he was not entitled to get higher pay scale, and the petitioner was only entitled to original pay after adding maximum of Rs. 250/- as a special pay and the petitioner had received higher pay scale contrary to the policy decision taken by the State Government on 22-1-1985 and since audit objections were raised and it was found by the audit department that writ petitioner had been drawing salary on the higher post since 1994, the recovery had been shown in the pension payment order and hence, the petitioner's pension at Rs. 9650/- was contrary to the Rules and it ought to have been fixed at Rs. 8125/- per month, therefore, it is urged that recovery was a means to make good the loss suffered by the public exchequer.