HIMACHAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is contended that the Petitioner was an employee of Animal Husbandry Department and reached the age of superannuation on 30.4.2006. The Respondent-department vide order dated 20.3.2006 read with order dated 20.4.2006 and Letter No. E-310/6237 dated 25.7.2006 re-fixed the pay of Petitioner and, accordingly, directed for fixing his pension and other service benefits and for recovery of alleged excess amount drawn. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner has questioned the said orders/communication by the medium of present writ petition on the grounds taken in it.

(2.) Precisely the case of Petitioner is that he held the post of Veterinary Assistant till he reached the age of superannuation. Further it is contended that the Respondents without any justification and competence have directed to effect recovery after re-fixing his pay, that too after he has reached the age of superannuation. It is prayed that the impugned orders/communication be quashed and Respondents be directed to pay pension and other service benefits in terms of the pay last drawn by him.

(3.) The Respondents have admitted in their reply that the order of promotion of Petitioner was questioned before the Court and in terms of the judgment of Division Bench the Petitioner and other employees came to be demoted, but despite that the Petitioner was holding and working against the post of Veterinary Assistant till he reached the age of superannuation.