The State of Haryana and Others vs Savitri Devi

This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, setting aside recovery initiated against the writ petitioner and directing recovered amount to be returned with interest. Further direction is to pay cost of Rs. 25,000/-, to be recovered from the officer who filed reply or any other officer who may be responsible.

Raj Kumar, husband of the respondent, served the Department of Land Reforms, Haryana and on 2.2.2006, he died in harness. He joined service on adhoc basis in the year 1979 and his service was regularized in the year 1982 w.e.f. 22.6.1979. He was serving in the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation (HSMITC), which was closed down in the year 1989 and its employees were absorbed in other departments. Raj Kumar was absorbed in Department of Land Reforms, where he joined in the year 1990. Decision was taken to count service rendered in HSMITC for additional increment/higher standard scale. Accordingly, Raj Kumar was granted one increment on completing eight years of service by including the service rendered with HSMITC. He was also granted higher standard scale after completing 10 years. Later in the year 1999, a decision was taken not to count past service for higher standard scale. The said decision was set aside by order dated 9.10.2000 in C.W.P. No. 13141 of 1999 filed by Raj Kumar. On 29.8.2007, decision was again taken to withdraw the second ACP scale retrospectively and accordingly, family pension and terminal benefits were also proportionately reduced. Decision was taken to recover Rs. 2,01,440/-from the writ petitioner, widow of Raj Kumar. A sum of Rs. 1,10,084/-was also adjusted out of dues. The decision to recover the amount and to adjust the amount, as above, was challenged in the writ petition. In the reply, the decision was defended on the ground that ACP scale was given by mistake as past service rendered by Raj Kumar in HSMITC was not liable to be counted.

Learned Single Judge held that in view of earlier DB judgment of this Court dated 3.12.2001 in C.W.P. No. 4935 of 1998, Annexure P-8, stand of the appellant could not be accepted.

We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant.

Learned Counsel for the appellant is not able to show how in view of earlier order of this Court, Annexure P-8, ACP scale having been granted could be withdrawn. In such circumstances, learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the recovery and withholding of the amount and also directing return of the said amount with interest. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we delete the direction for payment of cost and recovery thereof from the salary of the concerned officer.

The appeal is disposed of.