Union of India vs Santokh Singh

Dr. Saikia, C.J.—Heard Mr. Tashi Rabstan, learned CGSC, for the appellant as well as Mr. T. K. Raina, learned counsel for the

respondent.

By means of this appeal, Union of India-appellant, has assailed the judgement and order dated April 30, 2001, passed by the learned Single

Judge in SWP no. 1785/1997.

Basic issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the respondent retired as Hawaldar or Naib Subedar, and, consequently, whether he is

entitled to pension of Hawaldar or Naib Subedar.

The learned Single Judge, while entertaining the writ proceedings initiated by respondent herein, having considered the entire records, as well as

the submissions and contentions made by the writ petitioner-respondent herein, came to the finding that the respondent was entitled to the pension

of Naib Subedar, as he was given the said honorary rank of Naib Subedar by appellant vide order dated 9.6.1979. It was further observed by the

Writ Court that the said order, giving the honorary rank of Naib Subedar to the resgondent, was not controverted by the appellant.

Mr. Tashi Rabstan, learned counsel for the appellant, while challenging the observations and findings of the learned Single Judge, has submitted

that the Writ Court did not, at all, consider the response submitted on behalf of the Union of India and, therefore, the view taken by the learned

Single Judge was erroneous, as the basic facts projected by the Union of India have not been taken note of in the impugned judgment. According

to him, the respondent, at no point of time, was given any rank of Naib Subedar. It is submitted that the respondent all along a Havaldar, retired as

a Havaldar and, therefore, is entitled to get his pension on the rank of Havaldar. However, while forwarding the Samar Seva Medal to him in

1979, he was inadvertently shown as Naib Subedar and had, thus, been given pension taking him on the rank of Naib Subedar. As a result, he had

drawn excess amount and, accordingly, the pension was reduced to the amount as was due to him. Further, the excess amount which had been

paid to the respondent earlier, was directed to be recovered from the respondent.

Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and order deserve interference.

Supporting the impugned judgment, Mr. T. K. Raina, learned counsel for the respondent, referring the submissions and contentions made in the

writ petition, has strenuously contended that admittedly, the respondent retired as Havaldar in the year 1970. He was drawing the pension of

Havaldar. But later he was given the honorary rank of Naib Subedar by order dated 9.6.1979, by virtue of which he was entitled to the pension of

Naib Subedar. Accordingly, his pension was increased which also has been admitted by the appellant in the memo of appeal itself, that the amount

has been increased. Pursuant to the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission, Mr. Raina, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view

of the above the pension of respondent cannot be reduced and the alleged excess payment, as directed, cannot be recovered.

We have given due consideration to the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, carefully perused the material available

on the record, as well as the impugned judgment and memo of appeal.

Basic fact is that the respondent retired in the year 1970 as Hawaldar. After nine years of his retirement in 1979, an order was issued by

appellant showing him Naib Subedar. In 1994, the Union of India-appellant has come up with the fact that the order dated 09.06.1979, showing

the respondent as Naib Subedar, was issued inadvertently and the error so made was rectified by order dated 26.03.1996, to show that the

respondent was not Naib Subedar, but a Hawaldar. Amazingly it took 17 years for the Union of India to come up with such corrigendum. In view

of the same, we are of the view that the rectification having come up at a belated stage, after a gap of more than one decade, interest of justice will

be satisfied, if remaining of the excess amount drawn by the respondent and not recovered from him till date, is directed not be recovered.

We order accordingly.

The appeal stands disposed of.