(1.) The petitioner is a widow of Raj Kumar, who had served in the Department of Land Records, Haryana. He expired on 2nd February, 2006 while in service. The husband of the petitioner had joined as a Patwari on 22nd June, 1979 on ad hoc basis in Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation (HSMITC). His services were regularised with effect from 22nd June, 1979,--vide order dated 7th July, 1982. In the year 1989, the State of Haryana took a decision to close down HSMITC. Simultaneously, a decision was taken by the Government to absorb the employees of this Corporation in other departments. The husband of the petitioner Accordingly was absorbed in the Department of Land Records, Haryana on the condition that after absorption in the revenue department, he shall be paid salary at the same rate as per the LPC received from the HSMITC. The husband of the petitioner accordingly joined the Revenue Department in the year 1990. It is averred that the Government took a decision on 20th March, 1998 to count the service of the erstwhile employees of HSMITC after their absorption for the benefit of additional increment/higher standard scale in the new department. In this background, the husband of the petitioner was granted increment on completion of eight years of service by taking into account the service rendered by him in HSMITC. He was also granted the benefit of higher standard scale on completion of ten years of service.
(2.) Subsequently, however, on 20th July, 1999, the respondents took a decision to deny the benefit of counting previous service rendered by the husband of the petitioner in HSMITC towards higher standard scale/ additional increment. The husband of the petitioner accordingly challenged this decision by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 13141 of 1999. This writ petition was allowed on 9th October, 2000 and, thus, he continued to draw the higher standard scale by taking into account his previous service rendered in the HSMITC. Respondents never gave any notice for withdrawing this benefit of higher standard scale. This scale was also not withdrawn during the life time to the husband of the petitioner. On completion of twenty years of service, the husband of the petitioner was granted second ACP on 22nd June, 1999. Husband of the petitioner, thus, continued to draw the second ACP scale granted to him. Upon his death in the year 2006, the family pension payable to the petitioner was accordingly fixed by taking into consideration the last pay drawn by her late husband. Subsequently, however, the respondents without serving any notice or without disclosing any reason have withdrawn the second ACP scale earlier granted to the husband of the petitioner by an order dated 29th August, 2007. The pay scale of the late husband of the petitioner has accordingly been fixed in the scale of Rs. 4,000--6,000 retrospectively. This has been done after withdrawing the service rendered by him in HSMITC. On this basis, the family pension, gratuity, leave encashment and monthly financial assistance, which are admissible and granted to the petitioner have also been reduced by the respondents. Not only that, an amount of Rs. 2,01,440 has been directed to be recovered from her on account of excess payment of salary to the late husband of the petitioner. In a most unfair manner, the respondents have adjusted a sum of Rs. 1,10,084 against the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity and the remaining amount has also been ordered to be recovered from the amount of leave encashment and from the monthly financial assistance payable to the petitioner. The orders passed by the respondents in this regard were not supplied to the petitioner. Hapless petitioner, thus, was not left with any option but to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(3.) Though notice regarding stay was issued in this case while issuing notice of motion, yet there was no order granting stay either of recovery or of any other nature. Entire recoveries have been effected from the petitioner.