Hans Raj vs State of H.P and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the grant of following amongst other reliefs:

That Annexure P-5 dated 22.3.2007 and Annexure A-6 dated 11.6.2007 issued by the Respondent No. 1 may kindly be quashed and set aside as the same are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

That the Respondents be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 67,427/- alongwith penal interest of 18% to the applicant, recovered/deducted vide Annexure A-5 and A-6.

From the material on record, it is apparent that vide office order dated 19.6.1995, the Petitioner was given benefit of Fundamental Rule 22(a) (i). The Petitioner superannuated from service on attaining the age of retirement on 30.4.2007. Just before his superannuation, order annexure A-5 was issued by the Director, Elementary Education and an objection was raised that since the Petitioner was already working in the scale of Rs. 1640-2925 w.e.f. 1.1.1995, he was not entitled for pay fixation under FR 22(1)(a)(i). Therefore, deduction of Rs. 67,427/- was made from his retiral benefits vide Annexure A-6. The Petitioner is challenging these orders before this Court.

One of the main grounds of challenge is that the Petitioner having been given this benefit in the year 1995 and for 12 long years, nobody raised any objection in this regard and at the time of retirement, this objection was not sustainable.

I am not going into the merits of the controversy between the parties but the fact is that the Petitioner was granted the scale by the 3 Government. It is not the case of the Government that the Petitioner misled the State or stated any false facts while claiming benefits of the proficiency step up. This step up was granted to him after considering all factors. Even if it be assumed that this proficiency step up was granted by mistake, after 12 years when the Petitioner has already spent all this money, it would be highly inappropriate on the part of the State to withdraw this benefit and deduct a huge amount of Rs. 67,427/- from the retiral benefits of the Petitioner. This is also going to cause immense loss to the Petitioner in future because his pension and retiral benefits would be affected. No notice was issued to the Petitioner before ordering such deduction. Therefore, on this point alone, the petition has to be allowed.

Normally in a case like the present, this Court may have granted permission to the State to take a fresh action after issuing notice but here we are dealing with a person who has retired from service and was given the benefit, in question, for 12 years without any objection from any audit party.

Therefore, the petition is allowed. The impugned order has been quashed and set aside. The State is directed to refund the amount recovered from the retiral benefit of the Petitioner alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of his retirement till the payment of the same latest by 30th September, 2011 failing which the State shall be held liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.