Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs Raghuvender Singh Yadav and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Judgment-debtor (JD) no. 1 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Executing Court. Respondent no. 1-plaintiff Raghuvender Singh Yadav, who was employed as Conductor on bus of the petitioner, filed suit against petitioner and its General Manager-respondent no. 2, claiming the following relief:-

It is, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed with costs with the declaration that the impugned order No. 773 dated 28.1.02 passed by defendants reducing the pay of the plaintiff and fixing less pension and forcibly effecting a recovery about Rs. 34000/- from the plaintiff as excess paid w.e.f. 9.2.1978 as pay and not paying the entire payment of pensionary benefits with 18% p.a. interest and not fixing his pension/pay correctly is illegal, malafide, arbitrary and against services rules and the defendants may be directed to make the entire payment of pensionary benefits with 18% p.a. interest with consequential benefits and pay the entire recovery, illegally withheld and set aside the impugned order of pay reduction with interest.

Any other relief the court deems proper may also be given to the plaintiff.

The trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 30.05.2005 (Annexure P-2), partly decreed the suit to the following effect:-

Consequent upon my findings on abovesaid issues, the suit filed by the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs. The order no. 773 dated 28.01.2002 is declared void ab initio. The defendants are directed to refund an amount of Rs. 34,000/- to the plaintiff within two months. They are also directed to pay interest on delayed payments at the rate of 6% per annum w.e.f. 28.2.2002 till the date of actual payment of pensionary benefits. Rest of the reliefs are declined. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.

Respondent no. 1-decree-holder (DH) has filed execution petition, wherein learned Executing Court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-4), has held the DH entitled to revision of his pension on basic salary of Rs. 7440/- instead of basic salary of Rs. 7220/- per month. Feeling aggrieved, JD no. 1 has filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Vide order dated 28.01.2002 (Annexure P-5), pay of the plaintiff-petitioner was refixed by JDs at a lower level than the pay, which had been fixed vide order dated 09.02.1978.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that except declaring order (Annexure P-5) to be void and directing the defendants to refund the amount of Rs. 34,000/- to the plaintiff with interest, rest of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the suit were specifically declined by the trial court, and therefore, the DH is not entitled to refixation of his pension, which has been fixed according to the revised pay.

On the other hand, counsel for respondent no. 1-DH contended that since order dated 28.01.2002, refixing the pay of the plaintiff, has been declared null and void, the plaintiff is entitled to revised pension, as rightly directed by the Executing Court.

I have carefully considered the matter.

Relief granted by the trial court as against the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit has been reproduced hereinbefore. Except the relief specifically granted by the trial court, the other reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the suit were specifically declined by the trial court. If still some doubt persisted regarding entitlement of the plaintiff to higher pension, the same is dispelled by paragraph 12 of judgment (Annexure P-2). Discussion by the trial court in the said paragraph reveals that the defendants were held entitled not to recover the amount already paid to the plaintiff prior to the refixation of his pay, by impugned order (Annexure P-5). It was also held that the pay could not be reduced retrospectively without opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. Combined effect of the judgment of the trial court is that refixation of pay retrospectively and consequent recovery from the plaintiff were held to be bad. However, the plaintiff retired one month after the passing of order (Annexure P-5). Consequently, at the time of his retirement, his basic pay was as revised by the petitioner. The said revised pay was not effective retrospectively for the period before the passing of order (Annexure P-5). Consequently, recovery of Rs. 34,000/-, made on the basis of said order, was ordered to be refunded to the plaintiff. However, relief claimed by the plaintiff regarding refixation of his pension was specifically declined by the trial court. Consequently, the DH is not entitled to revised pension, as erroneously directed by the Executing Court. Impugned order of the Executing Court in this regard suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order (Annexure P-4) passed by the Executing Court is set aside to the extent of holding the DH entitled to pension calculated on the salary of Rs. 7440/- as against salary of Rs. 7220/- along with interest on the difference amount in the pension.