NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA Vs. VINOBA BHAVE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When without communicating a reason for deduction from pension and calculation on the alleged excess payment, Rs.10,000/ per month was being deducted from the pension payable to the petitioner, he has filed this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on 28.04.1981 in J.J. College, Jhumari Telaiya as Lower Division Assistant. He has asserted that this post was a sanctioned post. He has superannuated from service on 31.05.2010 and before his retirement he was granted benefits of payrevisions. He was paid his last salary in the payscale of Rs.55009000/. He has produced a certification of the respondentVinoba Bhave University dated 06.07.2010 which would disclose that his last pay of scale was Rs.55009000/. In the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the respondentUniversity, it is not disclosed since when the petitioner was paid in excess to what was payable to him. No calculation on excess payment allegedly made to the petitioner has been produced on record. It is merely stated that Rs.10,000/ per month is being deducted from the pension payable to the petitioner on account of excess payment made to him. Till when such deductions would continue is also obviously not known. In the counteraffidavit, the respondentState has produced a chart showing the alleged rectified payscale of nonteaching employees of J.J. College, Jhumari Telaiya. This document is dated 06.02018, the writ petition was filed on 15.10.2017 and several years before that the petitioner had superannuated from service. There is an order of this Court directing the respondents to pay retiral benefits to the petitioner in the Lok Adalat.

(3.) In the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the Director, Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department, it is disclosed that a rectified proposal of payscale of some staff was forwarded on 19.09.2015 and while placing reliance on the letter dated 30.12.2016 the respondentUniversity has tried to justify deduction from pension of the petitioner still, the respondents have failed to produce a document by which the petitioner was informed of the reasons for deduction and the amount of alleged excess payment. It is stated that a decision is finally taken in the year, 2018 by which correct payscale of few nonteaching employees has been fixed. The petitioner has produced a copy of Resolution dated 25.04.2006 which contains certain conditions for grant of benefits with effect from 20.01.2000 and he has asserted that he qualifies all the conditions contained in the aforesaid departmental letter dated 25.04.2006. It is not disputed that the petitioner does not fulfill those conditions. The respondents have not pleaded that the petitioner is not a classIII employee [refer, "State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334"]. On a vague plea that excess amount was paid to the petitioner without even disclosing the date since when such payments were made to him and without communicating any decision in this regard to him, on the basis of revised payscale issued on 06.02.2018 which admittedly precedes the date since when deduction of Rs.10,000/ per month was made from pension of the petitioner, respondents' action must be held illegal.