ROOP LAL PRASHAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved, since their pension has been re -fixed, with a direction to recover the excess amount already paid while they were in service. The simple issue pertains to the date, on which the petitioners were entitled to the Proficiency Step Up. It is not in dispute that the Proficiency Step Up, on completion of 8 years and 18 years, is given to avoid stagnation, in a particular scale. In other words, Annexure P -1, as clarified in Annexure P -2 policy, clearly shows that in case there is a change in the time scale within the stipulated time of 8 years and 18 years, an employee will not be entitled to Proficiency Step Up. In the case of the petitioners, on their initial entry in the post of clerks, before completion of 8 years, they were promoted as senior clerks with a change in the time scale. Only if an employee continues in the same time scale, for a continuous period of 8 years and 18 years thereafter taken together, he would be entitled to Proficiency Step Up. Inadvertently, in the case of the petitioners, their date of initial entry in service, without noticing their promotion as Senior Clerks in between, has been taken for counting 8 years. No doubt, that mistake was not noticed while they were in service, though several audits had taken place. However, at the time of fixation of pension, it was noticed and steps were taken to re -fix the pay and the consequential pension.

(2.) PLACING reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475, it is contended that the petitioners have not made any representation, much less misrepresentation for grant of Proficiency Step Up and the pay originally fixed, cannot be re -fixed, in any case after retirement. It is also submitted that in any case, there is no justification for recovery of the excess payment already made after retirement.

(3.) PROFICIENCY Step Up, for which the petitioners were not entitled, has been wrongly granted to them and the moment it was found out, steps were taken to correct the same. The petitioners were given an opportunity and their representations were considered and they have been informed that only a mistake has been rectified in re -fixing the pay and the consequential pension. 4.As far as the people who have retired from service are concerned, it would be harsh and unreasonable to make recovery from the pension. Situation would have been different had steps been taken while they were in service and mistake detected within a reasonable time, in which case, without much hardship recovery could have been made, either in affordable instalments or from the pensionary benefits. But recovery shall not be made in the case of pensioners, who count only on the pension for their livelihood. Therefore, while the State is justified in re -fixing the pay and the pension by correcting the mistakes, there shall not be any recovery of the amounts of pension, already paid to them while they were in service. We make it clear that it will be open to the State, if so advised, to take steps to recover the same from any erring official, who might have made the wrong fixation intentionally.