GOVERDHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 3-8- 2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order Annex. 8 dated 19-12-2001 passed by the respondent No. 4 Joint Director, Pension and Welfare Department, Ajmer by which a recovery of Rs. 1,30,869/- was made from the Gratuity Payment Order of the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- The petitioner was appointed in the respondent Department as Surveyor on 16-2-1970 and after completion of two years service, he was declared as Semi Permanent on the post of Surveyor w.e.f. 16-2-1972 vide order Annex. 1 dated 17-1-1973 issued by the respondent Department and thereafter he became permanent w.e.f. 16-2-1980. According to the petitioner, his pay scale was revised and he was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 470-10-490-20-830 vide order Annex. 2 dated 25-1-1980 issued by the respondent No.2 Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Bhilwara and since then pay scales of the petitioner were revised according to rules from time to time. The further case of the petitioner is that after rendering more than 30 years of service, he sought voluntary retirement through application dated 2-12-2000 and that application was allowed by the respondent No. 2 through order Annex. 3, dated 13-12-2000 and in that order Annex. 3, it was mentioned that no departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner and it was also mentioned that no government dues were pending in account of the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that subsequent to the above order Annex. 3 dated 13-12-2000, the petitioner was retired on 1-3-2001 vide order Annex. 4 dated 1-3-2001 issued by the respondent No. 3 Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division Jahajpur, Bhilwara. The further case of the petitioner is that after his retirement, he completed all formalities pertaining to pension, but he was not given pension and thus, he gave a legal notice to the respondents on 11-9- 2001, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 5. A reply to that legal notice Annex. 5 was given by the respondents through Annex. 6 dated 6-10-2001. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4463/2001 and when that writ petition was pending, the respondents released the pension of the petitioner on 19-12-2001, but after making a huge recovery of Rs. 1,30,869/- through Gratuity Pension Order Annex. 8 dated 19-12-2001 and that recovery made through Annex. 8 has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner served another legal notice Annex. 9 on the respondents and a reply to that legal notice Annex. 9 was given by the respondents through Annex. 10 dated 30-1-2002 and it was explained by them that the petitioner was wrongly given pay scale of Rs.470-830 vide order dated 25-1- 1980 and the difference of that amount was found to be Rs.1,30,869/- and, therefore, that amount was to be recovered from the petitioner and for that, no notice was required to be given to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition with the prayer as stated above. The main case of the petitioner is that by withholding due pension of the petitioner, the respondents have committed illegality as there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and thus, the action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Apart from this, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before ordering recovery of the above amount from the gratuity of the petitioner. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that since payment was wrongly made to the petitioner, therefore, it was rightly recovered from the petitioner through GPO of the petitioner Annex. 8 dated 19-12- 2001. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.