RISHI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Electrician on work charge basis with the Electrical Division, Ranjit Sagar Dam Project. In the year 1988, the petitioner was granted the pay scale of Rs. 1200 -2100 in pursuance to the recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission made effective w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Apparently, thereafter the department took a decision to withdraw such benefit of grant of scale of Rs. 1200 -2100. The petitioner, who retired on 31.01.2008 upon attaining the age of superannuation has approached this Court being aggrieved of the action of the respondent -authorities to the extent that out of total sanctioned amount of gratuity i.e. Rs. 1,69,887 -00/ - and a sum of Rs. 1,19,142 -00/ - stands recovered and withheld on account of withdrawal of the scale of Rs. 1200 -2100. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would confine the scope of the present writ petition only as regards recovery of Rs. 1,19,142 -00/ - in terms of withholding the same from the gratuity that was to be payable to the petitioner upon his retirement. Counsel further submits that he is not impugning the action of the respondent -authorities insofar as withdrawal of the pay scale of Rs. 1200 -2100 is concerned.

(2.) COUNSEL would place reliance upon a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal & others Vs. State of Uttrakhand & others, : 2012 (4) SCT 227 and it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that no general principle of law has been laid down that only if there is miss -representation or fraud on the part of the recipient of the money then such excess payment could be recovered, but at the same time had noticed certain exceptions in the nature of employee who already stood retired or on the verge of retirement or belong to the lower hierarchy in the scheme of administration. Counsel would argue that the petitioner would fall in one of the aforesaid exceptions being a retired employee and accordingly the recovery from the gratuity could not have been effected.

(3.) IN the light of the facts noticed hereinabove, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner and to take a final decision on the representation dated 04.05.2012 (Annexure P -6) in the light of judgment rendered by this Court in Gurbax Singh's case (supra) and to pass a final order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Disposed of.