AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—A very short issue arises for consideration in the writ petition, but for the reason that it has taken this Court 16 years to finally dispose of the petition, we propose to dispose of the petition not on account of the issue raised but on account of the equities, which this Court feels, have set in.
It may be noted at the outset that pursuant to orders issued in the month of October 1990, but served upon the petitioners somewhere in the month of November 1991, recoveries in sums ranging between Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 21,000/- were sought to be effected from the salaries which were being paid to the petitioners.
Petitioners had a grievance against the recoveries effected and filed the instant petition praying that the orders passed by the respondents directing recoveries to be made from the salary of the petitioners be quashed.
On 10.9.1993, interim stay was granted in favour of the petitioners directing that henceforth no recovery by way of deduction be made from the monthly salary paid to the petitioners. On 2.3.1995 ''Rule'' was issued in the writ petition and the interim order dated 10.9.1993 was confirmed.
The petitioners joined service under CRPF on different dates in the years 1967 till 1969. All petitioners have since retired from service.
Considering the petty amounts involved and the fact that the petitioners have since retired from service as also the fact that unfortunately, due to docket explosion, the writ petition has remained pending in the record room of this Court for 16 years, we propose to make absolute the ''Rule'' by directing that no recoveries be made from the pensions which are now being paid to the petitioners. We reiterate once again that our reason for so directing is principally the pettiness of the sums involved as also the fact that the petitioners have since retired from service and are drawing pension.
We may briefly note the facts on which petitioners seek relief as prayed for.
On different dates in the years 1967 till 1969, petitioners were appointed as Stenographers Grade III under CRPF. In the year 1977, as per the petitioners, 23 posts of Stenographers were upgraded in the junior scale of Stenographer Grade II. As per the respondents the number of posts were 17. To fill up the posts which were created in the grade of Stenographer Grade II, administrative action was taken. Litigation ensued in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Matter was litigated till the Supreme Court. The ultimate position which emerged as a result of the litigation was the entitlement of the petitioners to be considered for promotion with back date. Review DPCs were held and the petitioners were promoted from retrospective dates between the years 1984 to 1986 and in respect thereafter an office order dated 12.10.1990 was issued.
Petitioners were released arrears of pay and their salaries were fixed in the grade with retrospective effect.
On 17.11.1992, on the basis of an audit objection, that salary for the period the petitioners have not actually worked as Stenographer Grade II was inadmissible, recoveries were sought to be effected. Said action has been challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the respondents were not justified in promoting other persons. Petitioners had to litigate and managed to obtain orders for constitution of review DPC to consider their claim for promotion in dates between the years 1984 to 1988. Review DPC held in favour of the petitioners, who were issued promotion orders promoting them with retrospective effect. According to the petitioners the respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong.
Per contra, the stand of the respondents is that having not worked as Stenographers Grade II, the petitioners cannot be paid salary in the said scale till they actually started working as Stenographer Grade II.
In view of the fact that the petitioners were wrongly denied promotions, equities are in favour of the petitioners who could not work as Stenographer Grade II, not because they refused to do so but because they were prevented from so doing.
Considering the pettiness of the amounts involved and the fact that the petition has been listed for final disposal after 16 years as also the fact that the petitioners have superannuated from service, we refrain from deciding the issue on merits but dispose of the petition directing that no deductions be made from the pensions which are being paid to the petitioners. We clarify that deductions, if any, effected by the respondents prior to the interim orders granted by this Court would not be refundable to the petitioners pursuant to the present order.
No costs.