KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 12. 3. 2001 passed by respondent no. 2, Executive Engineer, Concrete Production Division, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpur Kandi, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur directing the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,33,553. 00 on account of inadvertent grant of retrenchee increment in the year 1987. The petitioner also seeks a further direction for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the monetary benefits in the sum of Rs. 94,934. 00 withheld by the respondents with a further direction to the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 38,619. 00 with the respondents. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to release the retiral benefits to which the petitioner is entitled by way of gratuity, leave encashment and arrears of pay alongwith interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.

(2.) HAVING been retrenched from the BSL Project, Sundernagar, Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner was given provisional appointment and regular appointment subject to the approval by the competent authority on 30. 8. 1981. Thereafter, he was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 510 as Assistant Foreman Special (Dumper Operation ). He was allowed the higher salary of Rs. 640. The petitioner served under respondent No. 2. Executive Engineer, Concrete Production Division, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpur Kandi, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur from April 6, 1981 to February 28, 1998. He retired as Assistant Foreman Special Grade-I on superannuation at the age of 60 years. In the discharge certificate, it is mentioned that during his entire service, the work and conduct of the petitioner remained very good. No Demand Certificate was issued to the petitioner signed by the competent authority. The petitioner even vacated the government quarter which had been allotted to him w. e. f. 1981 on 4. 3. 1998. On 13. 11. 1998, an office order was issued directing all the Executive Engineers to settle the retirement benefits of the retirees with pension gratuity, leave encashment, G1s and GPF within a week positively. The petitioner was entitled to payment of gratuity and leave encashment for 95 days at the time of retirement. He was also entitled to arrears on account of revision of pay scale w. e. f. 1. 1. 1996 on account of enhancement of project allowance. The petitioner made number of applications for release of retirement benefits. Since there was undue delay in finalising the claim of the petitioner, he served a legal notice on respondent no. 2. When the claim was stilt not settled, the petitioner was constrained to file CWP No. 17620 of 1999. After the court had issued notice of motion in the aforesaid writ petition, respondent No. 2 served a notice on the petitioner dated 22. 2. 2000 intimating that the petitioner had drawn excess increments which normally were not admissible to him. Excess amount of Rs. 1,33,553. 00 is recoverable from him. The petitioner gave reply to the show cause notice and stated that the show cause notice is a counter- blast to the writ petition. He also stated that the notice is wholly vague. Ultimately, the writ was referred to the Lok Adalat. On 15. 12. 2000, the Lok Adalat directed the respondents to serve a fresh detailed show cause notice on the petitioner. They were also directed to provide adequate opportunity to the petitioner with liberty to consult the relevant record to sub-mil his reply to each specific item of recovery. Thereafter, fresh show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 1. 2. 2001. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply. Again by order dated 13. 3. 2001, the petitioner has been informed of the recovery as mentioned in the earlier part of this order. By letter dated 27. 11,1981, work-charge retrenched employees of Beas Project were given retrenchee increments. The petitioner was given the benefit of the retrenchee increments on the basis of the orders passed by the competent authority.

(3.) IN the written statement, filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, the averments made by the petitioner have been controverted. It is settled that on the basis of the letter dated 27. 11. 1981, one increment for two completed years of service rendered in the rank in which the retrenched employee was last employed was to be given subject to a maximum 7 increments. It was also provided that the pay fixed plus the other emoluments should not exceed the maximum emoluments drawn by retrenchee in the corresponding scale of last appointment. The petitioner was recruited as A. F. S. (Dumper Operator) in the scale of Rs. 510-940. At the time of retrenchment, the petitioner was drawing Rs. 50 ). On re-employment, his pay was fixed at Rs. 534 which was more than what he was drawing earlier. After two months, he was recruited in the scale of Rs. 510-940. The petitioner was inadvertently granted 8 increments during 10/81 and again 7 increments during 9/87 on account of retrenchee increment benefit for which he was actually not entitled. On 28. 12. 1999, Principal Secretary, Irrigation and Power, Punjab issued instructions to recover about Rs. 6. 48 crores from the retrenchee employee of Ranjit Sagar Dam who had been given the increments over and above to which they were actually entitled. Therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,33,553. 00 maximum of 7 increments.