Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 332 (UTT)

AVTAR SINGH CHAUDHURI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-06-17

Sudhanshu Dhulia

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Hem Pujari, Advocate with Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioner was an employee in the Animal Husbandry Department. He is aggrieved by the order dated 25.05.2012 and 10.07.2012 (Annexure-10 & 11 respectively) by which it has been ordered that he was wrongly given the benefit of first promotional pay-scale as well as second promotional pay-scale and, therefore by the impugned order dated 10.07.2012 it was ordered that the excess payment made to the petitioner recovered from him. 3. The petitioner alleges that the timescale promotion was not wrongly granted to him, but it was perfectly in accordance with law. 4. In the counter affidavit, the State Government states that the petitioner was wrongly granted first as well as second time-scale promotion under the Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) Scheme and when the mistake came to the notice, it was rectified and he has been put to the lower payscale and the excess amount is to be recovered from him. 5. Since there are disputes between the State and the petitioner as to what should be the payscale of the petitioner and as to whether the petitioner was entitled for getting the time-scale promotion or not, this Court finds that the specific details are lacking and the present matter involves disputed questions of fact and the same can be best adjudicated by the Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal. 6. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to approach the Public Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievances. To that extent, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 7. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that by now, the petitioner reached the age of his superannuation on 31.05.2012 and he has not yet received any post retiral benefits, including pension. This Court is of the opinion that the State Government is wholly unjustified in not paying any amount of post retiral dues and pension to the petitioner since it is admitted that the petitioner was working on a pensional post and the State Government ought to have given the pension, which is admitted by the State, as it has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that pension is not a bounty and, in fact, is a right of an employee. Therefore, the respondents are directed to fix a provisional pension at the admitted pay-scale of the petitioner and to continue to pay the same to the petitioner. The arrears of the provisional pension, including post retiral dues as admitted by the respondents be given forthwith to the petitioner within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, alongwith six percent interest on the due amount from the date of superannuation. 8. So far as the recovery of excess amount is concerned, the same shall remain stayed only for a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in this regard, the petitioner is at liberty to move an interim relief application before the Public Service Tribunal. 9. It is also made clear that no determination has been made with regard to the timescale promotion of the petitioner, as the ultimate claim of the petitioner regarding his timescale promotion has to be determined by the Public Service Tribunal. 10. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.