Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Ritu bahri, J.—This petition under Articles226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for directing the Respondents to release the retiral benefits without making any illegal deduction from the same.

Petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the Department of Animal Husbandry Punjab on 23.12.1983. He was granted the benefit of two increments as per the Punjab Government Emergency (Concession) Rules 1965 on 12.5.1989. After serving for 20 years, he retired on 31.12.2005. Vide order dated 26.12.2005 the two increments granted were ordered to be withdrawn. Vide order dated 14.3.2003 `74,000/-being market rent of the government accommodation was sought from the Petitioner for the period from November 1999 to November 2002. At the time of retirement, following deductions were made from his retiral benefits:

D.C.R. Rs. 1,11,969/-

Leave Encashment Rs. 88,497/-

Govt. Accommodation Rent Recovery Rs. 40,000/-

Salary for December 2005 Rs. 12,475/-

Paid Voucher of vehicle Rs. 5,000/-

Total Rs. 2,57,941/-

The Petitioner made a representation dated 7.11.2005 to the Secretary Animal Husbandry, Punjab. He was called upon to appear in the office of Respondent No. 2 and thereafter his representation was filed.

Certain deductions have been made vide order dated 30.8.2007 (Annexure R1) while complying with the orders of the Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Punjab dated 2.5.2007 which are as under:

R.O.P. 65093/-

Rent & Penal Rent 134244/-

Total 199337/-

Out of D.C.R.G. Bills 109406/- Rupees

Out of Leave Encashment bill 87856/- " "

Rest out of salary 12/05 2075/- " "

Total 199337/-

As far as the benefit of two increments is concerned, that has been withdrawn vide order dated 26.12.2005 (Annexure R-4/T) on the ground that Petitioner had availed of the emergency service benefit. This benefit was admissible to him on his first appointment i.e. 23.12.1983 and therefore the benefit granted on 12.5.1989 was withdrawn. As per Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules 1982 the benefit could be granted at the time of first appointment. He could get the benefit on his first appointment which was a Class-IV post. Petitioner had concealed while filing his affidavit dated 13.5.1995 that he had worked as Class-IV employee from 23.12.1983 to 12.5.1989. Hence, after joining as Driver with effect from 12.5.1989 he could not be given this benefit of two increments. The Petitioner was given an opportunity to make a representation for taking the benefit on the Class-IV post. The Petitioner failed to give any representation. The recovery on the second appointment does not suffer from any illegality.

While posted at Patiala, he was given Government accommodation. He was transferred from Patiala in November 1999 and could retain the accommodation only for two months. Petitioner did not vacate the Government accommodation despite notices dated 14.3.2003 and 16.4.2003. On a representation made by the Petitioner and taking a sympathetic view, sanction for Government quarter allotted to the Petitioner from November 1999 to December 2002 was given on the condition that no recovery shall be made after November 2003. The recovery made prior to this date shall not be returned. Thus, in view of Annexure R-1/T Rs. 1,99,337/- ( Rs. 65093/-on account of recovery of overpayment + Rs. 134244/-on account of rent and penal rent) instead of Rs. 7,941/-, as alleged by the Petitioner, has been recovered from the Petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed.