Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1149 (JHR)

Anil Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand

2013-10-18

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner had retired on 31.7.2000 while working as senior clerk in the Ranchi Collectorate, Ranchi. It is the contention of the petitioner that after his retirement he was granted the benefit of ACP by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, vide order as contained in memo no.258 dated 25.7.2003. Taking into account such grant of ACP, his pension was revised by the office of the Accountant General vide memo no.8377 dated 31.7.2007 and fixed at Rs.3877/, Annexure2. However, the petitioner was surprised to know the order issued under memo no.7532 dated 26.2.2010 passed by the office of the Accountant General, Jhakhand, Ranchi, whereby the pension of the petitioner has been reduced to Rs.3567/w.e.f. 15.11.2000 and the amount already paid was directed to be adjusted. The petitioner preferred a representation before the office of Accountant General, Ranchi and after failure of response to take any action, has moved this Court with a prayer to restrain the respondents from recovering his pension w.e.f. 15.11.2000 and also to restore his pension at Rs.3877/, which was sanctioned by memo no.1837 dated 31.7.2007. It is the contention of the petitioner that this has been done without any notice and without following any procedure under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has filed a counter affidavit in response. 4. Counsel for the respondent-State submits that representations were made by other employees alleging that the petitioner and one Jugal Prasad had been drawing more pension other than them. 5. Thereafter the case of the petitioner was examined and it was found that he was drawing the last pay at Rs.7133/ in the pay scale of Rs.4000 to 6000/while working as senior clerk in Ranchi Collectorate, Ranchi. Accordingly, his pension was fixed at Rs.3567/vide pension order dated 2.8.2001 issued by the Accountant General, Jharkhand. The petitioner was, however, promoted on need based post w.e.f. 1.2.1997 vide memo no.257 dated 23.10.2001 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in the scale of Rs.5000 to 8000/. He was sanctioned the benefit of second ACP in the scale of Rs.5500 to 9000/and after obtaining confirmation from the Divisional Commissioner, Ranchi, his case was referred to the office of the Accountant General, Jharkhand for revision of his pension. Thereafter his pension was revised at Rs.3877/by the office of the Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi. He was sanctioned the benefit of second ACP in the scale of Rs.5500 to 9000/and after obtaining confirmation from the Divisional Commissioner, Ranchi, his case was referred to the office of the Accountant General, Jharkhand for revision of his pension. Thereafter his pension was revised at Rs.3877/by the office of the Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi. Consequent upon the need based post promotion and the benefit of second ACP, the respondents have taken a stand that such fixation of the pay of the petitioner upon grant of such promotion was incorrectly made and, therefore, the fixation of his pay scale has again been reexamined and revised vide memo no.7532 dated 26.2.2010 by the office of the Accountant General reducing his pension. 6. From the statements made on behalf of the respondents, it, however, appears that before reducing the pension of the petitioner no show cause notice was issued to him. The petitioner has made a representation before the respondents, which has also not been responded to. 7. In such circumstances, at this stage, without observing anything on the merits of the claim, the matter is being disposed of by directing the petitioner to once again approach the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi with a fresh representation for redressal of his grievances together with all supporting facts and documents within a period of three weeks. On receipt of such representation, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi shall, after giving at least one opportunity to the petitioner, take a decision after due verification of the service records of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks thereafter. Dependant upon such decision, if any recommendation is made to the office of the Accountant General for correction in his pension, the office of the Accountant General shall act in accordance with law within a reasonable time. 8. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Petition disposed of.