AB. QAYOOM Vs. STATE OF J. & K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who retired from service as Sub-Inspector of Police on 31st May, 2002 is aggrieved of re-fixation of his salary behind his back, withholding his gratuity and deduction therefrom to the tune of Rs. 41,442/- and less fixation of his pensionary benefits by respondents. Following reliefs have been claimed in the writ petition.

(2.) It is averred in the petition that petitioner has rendered 38 years of service in police department. In the year 1988 when he was working as Head Constable, his pay was re-fixed to keep him at par with his junior. He was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector in 1991 and subsequently as Sub-Inspector of Police. He retired on 31st May, 2002. His last drawn pay was to the tune of Rs. 12,599/-. Respondent No. 3-Accountant General raised objections regarding wrong pay fixation of petitioner when matter for release of pensionary benefits of petitioner was under consideration. An amount of Rs. 70,000/- was withheld from the gratuity of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 unilaterally worked out excess pay drawn on the basis of communication of respondent No. 3. This was done behind the back of the petitioner. Thus pay of the petitioner was re-fixed after his retirement in terms of order No. 179 of 2003 dated 18.02.2003. Re-fixation of pay resulted in substantial reduction of the basic pay. Respondent No. 4 re-fixed the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the basis of re-fixed pay. Deduction of Rs. 41,442/- was ordered from the withheld amount of gratuity and recovery was effected accordingly. However, the balance amount of Rs. 28,558/- too was not released in favour of the petitioner. It is further averred in the petition that respondent No. 4 Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda had fixed salary of petitioner vide his Order No. 2165 of 1998 dated 30th November, 1998 in terms of SRO 75 of 1992. Petitioner, who had been placed under suspension at the time of issuance of SRO 72 of 1992 was later reinstated with all benefits and promoted as well. Thus, he claims, there was nothing wrong in the pay fixation done by respondent No. 4-Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda.

(3.) Respondents 1, 2 and 4 have contested the petition on the ground that re-fixation of salary of petitioner was made after objection raised by respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4 vide Order No. 1221 of 2002 dated 31.12.2002 re-fixed the salary of the petitioner up to 01.11.1998. After receiving the said fixation respondent No. 2 vide Order No. 179 of 2003 dated 18.02.2003 re-fixed the pay of the petitioner up to 31.05.2002 and on the basis of such re-fixation of pay, statement showing the recovery was drawn up.