SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. HPSEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order, Annexure P-12, dated 31.3.2009, of Senior Accounts Officer (Pension), F&A Wing, HPSEB, Shimla, whereby while authorizing payment of retirement gratuity to the tune of Rs.3,36,004/- in favour of the petitioner, recovery of a sum of Rs.63,136/- has been ordered to be made, by way of adjustment, against the aforesaid amount of retirement gratuity. Order is stated to be part of Annexure - 12. He has approached this Court for quashing the said order to the extent it directs recovery of a sum of Rs.63136/-, by way of adjustment, against the amount of retirement gratuity.

(2.) Petitioner, after having retired from Indian Army in the year 1983, was appointed as Junior Engineer (JE) in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, respondent No.1 herein, in the year 2000. His pay scale, at the time of his appointment, was Rs.6750-11050. He having served in the Indian Army and having been appointed against the post reserved for Ex-serviceman was given the benefit of pay fixation, in accordance with the Demobilized Armed Forces (Personnel) Act, 1972. Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2008. After his retirement, when the aforesaid letter forming part of Annexure P-12 was issued, he came to know that some recovery was being made, on account of alleged excess payment of salary. He came to know that in the year 2002 a notification, Annexure P-6, had been issued by which pay scale of directly recruited JEs had been revised and the revised pay scale was lower than the scale in which he was initially appointed. Revised scale was Rs.6300-10700. He further came to know that after issuance of Annexure P-6, a letter was issued in March, 2003, saying that on account of lowering of the pay-scale of directly recruited JEs, recovery was not to be effected on account of excess payments, till further orders. He also came to know that a note dated 27.8.2007 was issued by the Accounts Officer, which is Annexure P-9, per which petitioner's pay had not been correctly fixed, after the revision of pay scale vide notification, Annexure P-6, and pursuant to that note of Accounts Officer, an office order dated 17.10.2007, had been issued, indicating the fixation of pay of the petitioner in the revised pay scale. However, petitioner was never apprised by any of the aforesaid documents, regarding reduction in pay scale or the re-fixation of the pay and the note of the Accounts Officer, on the basis of which pay was re-fixed. It was only after his retirement that he came to know about re-fixation of his pay and order of recovery, as contained in letter dated 31.3.2009, Annexure P-12, authorizing payment of retirement gratuity.

(3.) Above stated factual position is not controverted by the respondents, but it is stated that on account of revision of pay scale, which resulted in lowering of the pay scale of directly recruited JEs, petitioner was not entitled to the salary, which was paid to him and, therefore, excess amount paid to him was required to be recovered and the order of recovery of excess amount, by way of adjustment, against the retirement gratuity, is lawful.