DIN DAYAL BISHT Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner was granted benefit of one advance proficiency increment on the basis of Annexure A- 1 dated 28.2.1974. This advance increment was granted to petitioner by way of incentive/award for not participating in employees' strike in 1970. Name of petitioner figures at Sr. No. 13 of this list. He retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.1996. A query was put up by the Office of the Accountant General to the respondent-State why the entry of proficiency increment has not been recorded in the service book of the petitioner. Petitioner made a representation to the District Ayurveda Officer on 10.3.1997. The matter was taken up by the Director, Ayurveda with the State Government on 11.4.1997. The State Government took following decision:

(2.) This decision was conveyed to the Director of Ayurveda on 10.9.1997. In sequel to office order dated 10.9.1997, pay of the petitioner was re-fixed after reduction of second proficiency increment awarded to him. His gratuity was also withheld for a period of two years and recoveries were directed to be effected on the basis of over payment.

(3.) Mr. K. D. Shreedhar has vehemently argued that the action of respondents to re-fix the salary of petitioner on the basis of Annexure A-5 and thereafter to effect recoveries from the retiral benefits of petitioner that too after the retirement is illegal, arbitrary and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.