Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 252 (UTT)

KHYALI RAM PANT v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-04-22

RAJIV SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner retired as Headmaster on 30.06.1989. His pension was revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and his pension was fixed at Rs.10,500/-. However, surprisingly, the same was reduced to Rs.8,624/- somewhere in the year 2010. 2. Petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WPSS No.130 of 2013. It was decided on 20.03.2013 by this Court. Petitioner was permitted to move a representation before the Competent Authority. The same was rejected by the Competent Authority vide Annexure No.21 dated 18.05.2013 on the ground that the pension was wrongly fixed. 3. Petitioner has neither mislead nor misrepresented the Authorities when his pension was fixed from Rs.8,624/- to Rs.10,500/-. 4. The respondents of their own have revised the pension of the petitioner to Rs.10,500/- on 01.01.2006. 5. The reason assigned for reducing the pension of the petitioner is that his pay was wrongly fixed w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The petitioner is not responsible for re-fixing of his pay. Thus, the respondents are estopped from reducing the pension of the petitioner. 6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2014 (16) SCC 444 , in the case of “Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department & others”, have held that the respondentemployer could neither reduce the salary paid by mistake to appellant nor there could be any recovery from pension of the appellant. Their Lordships have held as under: - “6. It had been submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant had retired on 31-12-2003 and somewhere in the month of March 2005 it was revealed that a mistake had been committed while fixing the pay of the appellant in 1986. It had been further submitted that by virtue of the aforestated G.O. dated 16-1-2007, the mistake committed in pay fixation beyond the period of 34 months prior to the retirement of the appellant could not have been taken into account by the respondent employer and therefore, neither could any recovery have been sought by the respondents nor could there have been any reduction in the pension on the basis of reduction of salary. 7. 7. Upon perusal of the aforestated G.O. and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it is not in dispute that the appellant had retired on 31-12-2003 and at the time of his retirement his salary was Rs 11,625 and on the basis of the said salary his pension had been fixed as Rs 9000. Admittedly, if any mistake had been committed in pay fixation, the mistake had been committed in 1986 i.e. much prior to the retirement of the appellant and therefore, by virtue of the aforestated G.O. dated 16-1-2007, neither any salary paid by mistake to the appellant could have been recovered nor pension of the appellant could have been reduced. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent employer could not deny any of the facts stated hereinabove. 9. In the aforestated circumstances, the High Court was not correct while permitting the respondent authorities to reduce the pension payable to the appellant by not setting aside the order whereby excess amount of salary paid to the appellant was sought to be recovered. 10. For the aforestated reasons, we quash the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court and direct the respondents not to recover any amount of salary which had been paid to the appellant in pursuance of some mistake committed in pay fixation in 1986. The amount of pension shall also not be reduced and the appellant shall be paid pension as fixed earlier at the time of his retirement. It is pertinent to note that the Government had framed such a policy under its G.O. dated 16-1-2007 and therefore, the respondent authorities could not have taken a different view in the matter of re-fixing pension of the appellant.” 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned Annexure No.21 dated 18.05.2013 and Annexure No.22 dated 30.05.2013 are quashed and set-aside. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.