Noor Mohammad Rather vs State Of J&K & Ors.

Hon’ble Mrs. Ritu Tagore, M[J]

The case of the petitioner, as projected in the T.A., is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the respondent department on 10.11.1976, on the post of Khalasi, in the pay scale of 180-250 and later on he was promoted to the post of cleaner in the pay scale of 200-320 in the year 1981. Finally he was Central Administrative Tribunal^{promoted to the post of Driver in the pay scale of 900-1830.}

It is further stated that the petitioner retired from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2012, while holding the pay scale of 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of 4200/-.

It is also stated that the petitioner was sanctioned first time bound promotion by the respondents, on 01.01.1995 and his pay was accordingly fixed. However, in the year 2009 the respondents re-fixed the pay of the petitioner on the context that the first time bound promotion was wrongly granted in his favour. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted first time bound promotion on 01.07.1998 instead of 01.01.1995, in the pay scale of 4500-7000, followed by grant of second in-situ promotion on 01.07.2007 vide order dated 22.11.2008 issued by the respondents 1 to 3, and the excess amount of Rs. 78,750/- drawn from 01.01.1995 till December, 2012, was recovered from his salary.

He further submits that the respondents have wrongly determined petitioners retiral benefits, as aforesaid, by treating the petitioner as having retired in the Pay Scale of 5200-20200, when as a matter of fact, the petitioner retired from services while holding the pay scale of 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of 4200/-, and the petitioner had drawn his last pay as Rs.18470/-. He further submits that the respondents were required to compute all the retiral benefits of the petitioner in the pay scale of 9300-34800+4200/-.

Through the medium of the instant petition the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

Reply has been filed by Respondent No. 4 (Accountant General), wherein, it is submitted that none of the rights of the petitioner has been infracted or infringed upon for which the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon,ble tribunal could be invoked, and thus the application being devoid of any legal merit deserve to be quelled at its threshold against the answering respondent.

He further submits that the pensionary benefits have already been authorized by the office of Respondent No. 4, under PPO No 22134037-Dated:- 28-02-2013, by taking Last pay @ Rs 13550+2800=16350/= in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200+Gp2800.

He also submits that previously while perusing the Service Book of the petitioner, it has been observed that the 2nd Time Bound Promotion has been granted to the retiree, was not covered under rules, as he has already got three promotions on 04-06-1981 as Cleaner in the pay scale Rs. 200-320, second on 03-06-1989 as Driver in the pay scale of Rs. 900- 1830 and 3rd on 01-07-1998 (One Time bound Promotion) in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000. Accordingly, the pensionary benefits has been authorized by the answering respondent in the year 2013.

It is further submitted that as per clarification issued by Finance Department, a Government servant, who has already got three promotions, is not entitled to any Time Bound Promotion thereafter. An amount of Rs 211178/= was recovered on account of undue benefits of 2nd time bound promotion. The action of recovery has been confirmed by the PSA/DDO of the petitioner under the reference No: -PHEDC/Estt/5825 Dated:-26-12-2020. This issue has already been intimated to the concerned PSA/DDO vide answering respondents letter No:-PNRI/S-4/2021-22/73266/276-77 Dated: 24-05-2021 and a copy also sent to the petitioner. The correct pay fixation from time to time has been recorded in the Service book by the department vide Letter No:-PHEDC/Estt/5825 Dated:-26-12-2020. Due and drawn statement has been prepared by the department and an amount of Rs 192582+78750=271332/= has been recovered and remaining amount has been released by the answering respondent.

It is further submitted that the answering Respondent No. 4 has discharged all statutory functions entrusted to it in respect of the authorization of the petitioner's pensionary benefits. At present, no matter relating to the authorization or revision of the petitioner's pension or other pensionary benefits is pending consideration before answering respondents.

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if the present T.A. is treated as a representation and the respondents are directed to consider and decide the same within a stipulated time frame, in light of the averments made therein, along with the documents annexed and the law applicable in the instant case.

Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Rais-ud-Din Ganaie, learned Dy. AG, submits that, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, the respondents have no objection if the present T.A. is treated as a representation, and is disposed of in terms of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard and considered the material available on record.

In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and without commenting on the merits or otherwise of the matter, the respondents are directed to treat the present T.A as representation of the petitioner and to accord due consideration to the assertions made therein, in light of the law holding the field and subject to the entitlement and eligibility of the applicant, as well as other applicable conditions and rules and regulations. Respondents shall also take into consideration the documents annexed with the T.A. while according such consideration.

The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by passing a comprehensive reasoned, speaking, and detailed order.

With this, T.A No. 31/2022 is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

The file shall be consigned to records after due compliance.