S K SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.2 issued office order dated 26.6.2004 fixing the pay of the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1996. It was issued after consultation at various levels. He was allowed the benefit of merger of 50% DA with basic pay vide office order dated 24.8.2005. His retrial benefits were calculated pursuant to order dated 26.6.2004. In fact, respondent No.3 has issued revised certificate and report vide letter dated 27.7.2004. However, vide letter dated 27.5.2006 (Annexure A-9) pay of the petitioner was re- fixed from retrospective date i.e. 1.1.1996. The issuance of Annexure A-9 has led to reduction in pay and allowances of the petitioner. Annexure A-9 has also led to reduction of pensionary benefits such as pension, gratuity, leave encashment and commutation value of pension etc. Petitioner has retired in the year 2004.

(2.) The impugned order has been issued on 27.5.2006. Petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of Annexure A6 dated 27.5.2006. Petitioner has neither misled nor misrepresented the facts at the time of issuance of office order dated 26.6.2004. He has suffered civil and evil consequences.

(3.) Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others versus State of Bihar and others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 have culled out the following principles governing the circumstances in which the excess amount cannot be recovered by the employer: