AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Ms. Pathak for petitioner and learned AGP (Ms) T. Khan for
respondents.
We need not go into the disputed issues as petitioner does not challenge
any finding of fact recorded by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT).
Submission is, while upholding reversion of petitioner from post of Junior
Auditor as Accountant, salary received by her as Auditor till superannuation till 30th April,
1994 has been protected but then fact that she has also received pension accordingly,
has been lost sight of and MAT has therefore not protected pension received by her till
adjudication by MAT. Contention is, petitioner is not opposing consequential reduction of
pension but then the recovery of pension already received from 30th April,1994 onwards
should not be permitted.
Learned AGP, on the other hand, points out that earlier promotion of
petitioner which formed subject-matter of Writ Petition No.1759/1982 was on ad-hoc basis
and when it was sought to be taken away, in that Writ Petition on 10.6.1982, High Court
directed reconsideration of entitlement of petitioner without reference to uncommunicated
adverse remarks. Accordingly, she was considered in Selection Committee on 22.1.1987
and was found unfit. Because of this exercise, again she was sought to be reverted on
22.6.1988 and that reversion came to be stayed in Writ Petition No. 596/1988. Because
of this stay, she could continue as Junior Auditor till her superannuation. All these facts
are not in dispute. In due course, Writ Petition No.596/1988 came to be transferred to
MAT at Nagpur and was registered as Transfer Application No. 950/1992 and by
impugned judgment dated 20th June,2002 has decided it.
Perusal of impugned order of MAT reveals that the wages received by
petitioner as Junior Auditor till 30th April,1994 have been protected. MAT has permitted
pension to be released. However the fact then remains that from 22.1.1987 to 1992 the
petitioner has received pension as junior Auditor has not been looked into and, therefore,
there is no direction by MAT either permitting employer to recover the amount of excess
pension received by petitioner on promoted post or then prohibiting employer from
recovering it.
In view of this position, on 22.10.2002, while issuing rule in the matter,
this Court has restrained the respondent-employer from effecting recovery.
Reason for protecting salary of petitioner as Junior Auditor, may be that
she actually worked on that post and, therefore, earned that salary. Moreover, permitting
recovery after superannuation for such work may not have been just and proper. In any
case, recovery from pension on account of reduction of last pay drawn on eve of
superannuation will also be cruel, more so, at this stage, when we are looking at
controversy after 23-years of her superannuation.
Hence without observing anything more, we direct respondent-employer
not to effect any recovery towards pension received by petitioner after her superannuation
till execution of order of MAT dated 20th June,2002. Her pension from the date on which
said order has been given effect to shall, however, be by treating her last pay as on post
of Accountant.
Accordingly, Writ Petition is partly allowed and dispose it of. No costs.