RAJINDER KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 03.10.1961 and allotted to the J&K PSC. He was promoted from time to time and finally on 04.10.1984 promoted to the post of Section Officer. Further case of the petitioner is that he got first In -Situ promotion on 01.01.1995 and thereafter got promoted to the post of Administrative Officer on 13.11.1996 by the General Administration Department. The petitioner, however, superannuated from the Department of Health and Medical Education on 31.10.2001.

(2.) THE pension case of the petitioner was sent to the Accountant General, two months prior to his retirement. In releasing the pensionary benefits to the petitioner, the Accountant General vide his communication no.PNR -II/2001 -02/Sy -461/850 -51 dated 31.10.2001 (annexure A  to the writ petition) intimated to the respondents that the petitioner has already availed the benefit of three functional promotions and is not entitled to any In -Situ promotion w.e.f. 01.01.1995 to 31.10.2001. As a consequence, an amount of Rs.40,000/ - has been kept withheld for effecting recovery on account of payment of excess pay and allowances w.e.f. 01.01.1995 to 31.10.2001. The General Administration Department on the receipt of the communication from the Accountant General, however, worked out the recoverable amount at Rs.47,665/ - on this account from the petitioner.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the recovery on account of the excess amount of pay and allowances drawn on In -Situ promotion which was not due to him has been challenged by filing this writ petition in seeking the quashment of the letter no. PNR -II/2001 -02/Sy -461/850 -51 dated 31.10.2001, by issuance of a writ of certiorari and further seeking a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the full pension and gratuity to the petitioner evaluated on the basis of the last pay drawn. Respondent nos. 1 & 2 in their reply submitted that on the receipt of the impugned communication from the Accountant General to the effect that the petitioner was not eligible for any In -Situ promotion under SRO 14 of 15.01.1996 read with SRO 225 dated 04.07.1997 in view of the fact that he had already availed three functional promotions prior to the inception of the scheme and under the said SRO, the respondents - department worked out Rs.40,000/ - as recovery from the petitioner, under rules.