Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 390 (ALL)

JAGDISH PRASAD v. GOVERNMENT OF Uttar Pradesh

2018-02-13

A.P.SAHI, RAJEEV MISRA

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajeev Misra, J.—The present special appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 27.9.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed. 2. Supplementary rejoinder-affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner-appellant today, is taken on record. 3. We have heard Mr. Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shukla, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 4. The petitioner-appellant filed C.M.W.P. No. 64018 of 2012 (Jagdish Prashad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) for a number of reliefs as is evident from the prayer clause of the writ petition, which is extracted herein under : “(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of Chief Audit Officer, Lucknow Order No. 8007-10/31-04.2010 dated 18.2.2010 Annexure 10 to this writ petition. (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to pay the arrear of salary 1.10.2004 to 31.7.2005 for 10 month arrear of salary and to refix his pension after adding period of service from 1.10.2004 to 31.7.2005. (c) (i) issue a writ, order or direction to pay the increment on the increment date. (ii) to refix the revised salary from 1.1.2006 (iii) Refixation of pension. (iv) Difference amount of gratuity and difference of Nagdikarn of Earned Leave. (v) Bonus not paid for the period of 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005 with interest. (vi) Interest on revised pension. (vii) Medical Leave which was not paid Annexure. (d) Issue and other and further writ, order or direction in the nature for which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (e) award the cost of the present writ petition in favour of the petitioner.” 5. Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, it transpires that the petitioner appellant was initially appointed as a Panchayat Chettra Samprakshak (Auditor) vide appointment letter dated 24.9.1970. As such, the petitioner-appellant was required to conduct audit of different organizations. 6. While the petitioner-appellant was working as Senior Auditor Grade-I the petitioner-appellant was assigned the audit work of Zila Panchayat, Badaun for the financial year 1999-2000. The petitioner-appellant undertook the audit work of the aforesaid organization on 16.1.2001 and finished the same on 30.9.2003. As such, the petitioner-appellant was required to conduct audit of different organizations. 6. While the petitioner-appellant was working as Senior Auditor Grade-I the petitioner-appellant was assigned the audit work of Zila Panchayat, Badaun for the financial year 1999-2000. The petitioner-appellant undertook the audit work of the aforesaid organization on 16.1.2001 and finished the same on 30.9.2003. As such, the petitioner-appellant took 255 days for completing the aforesaid job assigned to him. With regard to the financial year 2000-2001, the petitioner-appellant undertook the audit work of the same organization on 22.4.2003 and took 247 days to complete the same. In respect of the financial year 2001-2002, the petitioner-appellant undertook the audit job of the aforesaid organization on 1.7.2004 and completed the same. 7. However, the audit report (Alekh Evam Antarik Appati) with regard to the audit work of Zila Panchayat, Badaun in respect of different financial years was not submitted by the petitioner-appellant immediately upon completion of the audit work. The petitioner-appellant only submitted the diary and Monthly Progress Report (Diary Evam Masik Pragati Prativedan). As such, the audit programme of the petitioner-appellant was not approved and the payment of salary to the petitioner-appellant was stopped from October, 2004. Subsequently, an explanation was called for from the petitioner-appellant regarding the aforesaid, vide order dated 17.2.2005 issued by the District Audit Officer, Badaun which was issued pursuant to the order dated 8.2.2005 issued by the Headquarter. However, no explanation was submitted by the petitioner-appellant. 8. The petitioner-appellant superannuated from his services on 30.6.2007. After an expiry of a period of more than two years and seven months, an order dated 18.2.2010 came to be passed by the respondent No. 2 The Chief Audit Officer (Co-Operatives and Panchayats), U.P., Lucknow whereby, the alleged absence of the petitioner-appellant for the period 1.7.2004 to 31.7.2005 was sanctioned as extra ordinary leave without pay and was to be excluded from the period to be calculated for the purpose of pension. 9. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2010, the petitioner-appellant filed C.M.W.P. No. 6408 of 2012 (Jagdish Prashad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge, by means of the judgement and order dated 27.9.2013. Consequently, the petitioner-appellant has now come up in appeal. 10. 9. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2010, the petitioner-appellant filed C.M.W.P. No. 6408 of 2012 (Jagdish Prashad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge, by means of the judgement and order dated 27.9.2013. Consequently, the petitioner-appellant has now come up in appeal. 10. From the perusal of the impugned judgement and order dated 27.9.2013, we find that the only ground urged before the learned Single Judge, in challenge to the order dated 18.2.2010 was that the period of absence of the petitioner-appellant could have been adjusted by the medical leave as well as the earned leave said to be in the leave account of the petitioner-appellant. The submission so made did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. According to the learned Single Judge, the medical leave can be granted only when the person is absent on medical grounds. Therefore, there is no question of attracting medical leave when a person is absent on any other ground. With regard to the adjustment of the period of absence with earned leave, the learned Single Judge was of the view that earned leave is not a kind of leave which can be used for accommodating a person who has remained absent without grant of leave. Thus the learned Single Judge did not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 18.2.2010, whereby, the period of alleged absence of the petitioner-appellant from 1.10.2004 to 31.7.2005 was directed to be treated as the extra ordinary leave without pay and further not liable to be counted in the period to be calculated for the payment of pension. 11. The questions which thus emerge for our consideration are whether the petitioner-appellant was actually absent from his duties from 1.10.2004 to 31.7.2005 and secondly, whether the absence of the petitioner-appellant for the aforesaid period could be regularized by grant of extra ordinary leave without pay with a further effect of the same being excluded from the period to be calculated for the payment of pension. 12. Mr. Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, in support of the appeal, vehemently urged before us that the impugned order dated 18.2.2010 is based upon an erroneous assumption. 12. Mr. Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, in support of the appeal, vehemently urged before us that the impugned order dated 18.2.2010 is based upon an erroneous assumption. The petitioner-appellant never absented himself from duty and therefore, the question of sanctioning extra ordinary leave without pay with further consequences in respect of the period of alleged absence i.e. 1.10.2004 to 31.7.2005, never arose. Referring to the application dated 3.8.2010, submitted by the petitioner-appellant under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, attention of the Court was drawn to the reply letter dated 5.10.2010 issued by the District Audit Officer, Badaun. On the strength of the aforesaid letter, it was submitted that the audit programme of the petitioner-appellant for the period October, 2004 to July, 2005 was disapproved by the District Audit Officer only on the ground that the petitioner-appellant had not submitted the audit report (Alekh Evam Antarik Appati) pertaining to the audit work given to the petitioner of Zila Panchayat, Badaun for the financial year 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. It was however, admitted that the petitioner-appellant had submitted the diary and the monthly progress report (Diary Evam Masik Pragati Prativedan) Thereafter, the payment of salary of the petitioner-appellant was stopped from October, 2004. Subsequent to the aforesaid, explanation was called for from the petitioner-appellant regarding the above, vide order dated 17.2.2005 issued by the District Audit Officer, Badaun which was issued in terms of the order dated 8.2.2005 issued by the Headquarters. However, admittedly no explanation was submitted by the petitioner-appellant. It was thus contended that the basis of the action taken against the petitioner-appellant, if can be said to be an alleged misconduct and certainly not an unauthorized absence from duty. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, elaborating his argument further contended that the grant of extraordinary leave without pay is regulated by Regulation 422 of the Civil Service Regulations. None of the contingencies provided for in Regulation 422 for grant of extraordinary leave are satisfied in the present case. Consequently, the grant of extraordinary leave without pay to the petitioner-appellant for the period 1.10.2004 to 31.7.2005 is contrary to the mandate of Regulation 422 of the Civil Service Regulations. As such the impugned order dated 18.2.2010 is liable to be quashed. 14. Consequently, the grant of extraordinary leave without pay to the petitioner-appellant for the period 1.10.2004 to 31.7.2005 is contrary to the mandate of Regulation 422 of the Civil Service Regulations. As such the impugned order dated 18.2.2010 is liable to be quashed. 14. Extending his challenge to the impugned order dated 18.2.2.2010, the appellant’s counsel contended that the petitioner-appellant, has superannuated from his services on 30.6.2007, whereas, the impugned order has been passed after an expiry of a period of more than two years and seven months, from the date of superannuation has the effect of reducing the pension of the petitioner-appellant. Such an order is therefore, contrary to the mandate of regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations as no such order could have been passed without obtaining the sanction of the Governor. From the perusal of the order dated 18.2.2010, it is explicitly clear that the same does not contain any recital regarding the sanction of the Governor having been obtained prior to the passing of the order dated 18.2.2010. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.2.2010 is not only illegal but also in excess of jurisdiction. 15. Lastly, it was submitted that the impugned order dated 18.2.2010, has serious civil consequences and therefore, such an order could not have been passed without affording notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellant. The impugned order is completely silent regarding the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appellant’s counsel further submits that the failure on the part of the answering respondents, in not affording any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellant, has seriously prejudiced the petitioner-appellant, inasmuch as, the petitioner-appellant has been deprived of an opportunity to plead his case before the respondent No. 2, prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 18.2.2010. 16. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shukla, the learned Standing Counsel, supported the impugned order dated 18.2.2010. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner-appellant was entrusted with the audit work of Zila Panchayat Badaun, in respect of the financial years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. However, the petitioner-appellant submitted the audit report in respect of the financial year 1999-2000 on 2.8.2005. Rakesh Kumar Shukla, the learned Standing Counsel, supported the impugned order dated 18.2.2010. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner-appellant was entrusted with the audit work of Zila Panchayat Badaun, in respect of the financial years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. However, the petitioner-appellant submitted the audit report in respect of the financial year 1999-2000 on 2.8.2005. He further submitted that on account of the failure of the petitioner-appellant, in not submitting the audit report for the year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, the audit programme of the petitioner-appellant was disapproved. Thereafter, the payment of salary of the petitioner-appellant was stopped from October, 2004. Ultimately, explanation was called for from the petitioner-appellant, vide order dated 17.2.2005, issued by the District Audit Officer, Badaun, which was issued in terms of the earlier letter dated 8.2.2005, issued by the Head-Quarters. However, the petitioner-appellant, in spite of the receipt of the aforesaid order, did not submit his explanation. As such, the impugned order dated 18.2.2010 was passed, whereby the period 1.10.2004 to 31.7.2005 was adjusted by sanctioning extraordinary leave without pay with further effect that the same shall not be counted in the period to be calculated for the payment of pension. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the authorities have taken a lenient view of the matter with regard to the failure on the part of the petitioner-appellant, in not submitting the audit reports for the year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant. Consequently, the present Special Appeal is also liable to be dismissed. 17. We have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. 18. It is the admitted position between the parties that the petitioner-appellant was entrusted the audit work of Zila Panchayat, Badaun, in respect of the financial years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The petitioner-appellant did undertake the aforesaid job and practically completed the same. However, the audit report regarding the same for the financial years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 has not been submitted by the petitioner-appellant. The factum of the petitioner-appellant having actually performed his duties, as detailed above, is admitted in the letter dated 19.10.2005, copy of which is on the record at page 88 of the paper book. However, the audit report regarding the same for the financial years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 has not been submitted by the petitioner-appellant. The factum of the petitioner-appellant having actually performed his duties, as detailed above, is admitted in the letter dated 19.10.2005, copy of which is on the record at page 88 of the paper book. Furthermore, while the petitioner-appellant was entrusted with the aforesaid audit work, he was also engaged in elections duty as is established from the letter dated 19.10.2005 and also the documents appended alongwith the paper book which are at page 76 to 83. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner-appellant refrained from performing the election duty assigned to him. Thus, the inescapable conclusion is that the petitioner-appellant was actually present and performed his duties in the period alleged to be unauthorizedly absent. Therefore, the adjustment of the period 1.10.2004 to 31.7.2005 as extra-ordinary leave without pay with future effect of the same being excluded from the period to be calculated for the payment of pension against alleged absence from duty, is wholly illegal. 19. This takes us to the second ground of challenge to the impugned order dated 18.2.2010 that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of Regulation 422 of the Civil Service Regulations as none of the contingencies provided for the grant of extra-ordinary leave in the aforesaid regulations are present in the case of the petitioner-appellant. For better appreciation of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant it will be useful to reproduce Regulation 422 of the Civil Service Regulations for ready reference. “422. For better appreciation of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant it will be useful to reproduce Regulation 422 of the Civil Service Regulations for ready reference. “422. Interruptions in service either between to spells of permanent and temporary service or between a spell of temporary and permanent service or vice versa may be condoned by the Pension Sanctioning Authority subject to the following conditions, namely- (1) the interruptions should have been caused by reasons beyond the control of the Government servant concerned; (2) Service preceding the interruptions should not be less than of five year’s duration, and in cases where there are two or more such interruption, the total service, pensionary benefits in respect of which will be lost if the interruption are not condoned should not be less than five years, and (3) Interruptions should not be more than of one year’s duration and in cases where there are two or more such interruptions the total period of interruptions sought to be condoned, should not exceed one year.” 20. From the perusal of the aforesaid Regulations, it is explicitly clear that none of the conditions provided for the grant of extraordinary leave are satisfied in the case of the petitioner-appellant. Consequently, there is no basis for sanctioning extraordinary leave without pay to the petitioner-appellant and that to for adjusting the period 1.10.2004 to 31.7.2005 treating the petitioner-appellant to be in unauthorized absence from duty. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant in continuation of his challenge to the impugned order dated 18.2.2010 has urged that the impugned order has been passed after the expiry of period of more than two years and six months from the date of superannuation of the petitioner-appellant which is 30.6.2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant drew the attention of the Court to regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations and contended that the impugned order dated 18.2.2010 has the effect of reducing the pension of the petitioner-appellant. He further submits that since no departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner appellant prior to the date of his superannuation nor any charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner-appellant prior to the date of his superannuation, the impugned order could not have been passed without obtaining the prior sanction of the Governor. He further submits that since no departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner appellant prior to the date of his superannuation nor any charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner-appellant prior to the date of his superannuation, the impugned order could not have been passed without obtaining the prior sanction of the Governor. He thus submits that as no prior sanction of the Governor has been obtained in the matter as contemplated under regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, the impugned order dated 18.2.2010, passed by the respondent No. 2, is not only illegal but in excess of jurisdiction also. 22. In order to appreciate the aforesaid submission, it will useful to reproduce the provisions of Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations which are extracted herein under : “351-A. The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his Service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. Provided that- (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor, (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings, and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place or places as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made. (b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), and (c) the Public Service Commission, U.P., shall be consulted before final orders are passed. [Provided further that of the order passed by the Governor relates to a cash dealt with under the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings, (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947, it shall not be necessary to consult Public Service Commission]. [Provided further that of the order passed by the Governor relates to a cash dealt with under the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings, (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947, it shall not be necessary to consult Public Service Commission]. Explanation—For the purposes of this article- (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him, or, if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted : (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which a complaint is made, or a charge-sheet is submitted, to a criminal Court; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on which the plaint is presented or, as the case may be, an application is made, to a Civil Court.” 23. Admittedly prior to the superannuation of the petitioner-appellant from his services on 30.6.2007 neither any departmental proceedings had been initiated, nor any charge-sheet had been submitted to the petitioner-appellant. Therefore, in the absence of any departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner-appellant, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner-appellant could not be curtailed without obtaining the prior approval of the Governor as required by Regulation 3521 A of the Civil Service Regulations. Admittedly, the impugned order does not contain any recital that the prior sanction of the Governor was obtained before passing of the impugned order dated 18.2.2010. Thus, the impugned order dated 18.2.2010 is contrary to the mandate of the aforesaid Regulations, as such the same is unsustainable in law. 24. We may refer to the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. R.C. Misra, (2007) 9 SCC 698 . Considering the provisions of Regulation 351-A and 470 of the Civil Service Regulation, the Apex Court has observed as follows in paragraphs 8,9 and 10 : “8. 24. We may refer to the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. R.C. Misra, (2007) 9 SCC 698 . Considering the provisions of Regulation 351-A and 470 of the Civil Service Regulation, the Apex Court has observed as follows in paragraphs 8,9 and 10 : “8. The substantive part of Regulation 351A confers the power upon the Government of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. 9. There is a proviso appended to the Regulation which circumscribes the power conferred by the substantive part of the Regulation. Clause (a) of the proviso with which we are concerned here uses the expression if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment. Clause (a) of the proviso will, therefore, get attracted only when the departmental proceedings are instituted against the officer after his retirement or when he is not in re-employment. If the departmental proceedings are instituted before an officer has attained the age of superannuation and before his retirement, proviso (a) can have no application. In order to remove any doubt regarding the date of institution of enquiry or the judicial proceedings an Explanation has been appended after the proviso. According to Explanation (a), departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted (i) when the charges framed against the officer are issued to him, or (ii) if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. By incorporating the explanation, the rule framing authority has notionally fixed two dates as the date on which the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted against an officer. 10. A combined reading of the proviso and the explanation would show that there is no fetter or limitation of any kind for instituting departmental proceedings against an officer if he has not attained the age of superannuation and has not retired from service. 10. A combined reading of the proviso and the explanation would show that there is no fetter or limitation of any kind for instituting departmental proceedings against an officer if he has not attained the age of superannuation and has not retired from service. If an officer is either placed under suspension or charges are issued to him prior to his attaining the age of superannuation, the departmental proceedings so instituted can validly continue even after he has attained the age of superannuation and has retired and the limitations imposed by sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of proviso to Regulation 351A will not apply. It is only where an officer is not placed under suspension or charges are not issued to him while he is in service and departmental proceedings are instituted against him under Regulation 351A after he has attained the age of superannuation and has retired from service and is not under re-employment that the limitations imposed by sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of proviso (a) shall come into play.” 25. Again in Paragraph 13, it was held as follows : “13. The provisions of Articles 351A and 470 of Civil Service Regulations have recently been examined by this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Harihar Bhole Nath IT, 2006 (9) SC 567, and it is held as under in paras 14 and 15 of the report : 14. The proceedings for recovery of the amount from a Government servant can be passed in the event he is held to be guilty of grave misconduct or caused pecuniary loss to Government by his misconduct or negligence during his service. Some procedural safeguards, however, have been laid down in terms of proviso appended thereto, including the requirement to obtain an order of sanction of the Governor. Such order of sanction, however, would not be necessary if the departmental proceedings have been initiated while the delinquent was on duty. Proviso appended to Regulation 351-A merely controls the main proceedings. The same would apply in the exigencies of the situation envisaged therein, namely, when the proceedings were initiated after retirement and not prior thereto. 15. Such order of sanction, however, would not be necessary if the departmental proceedings have been initiated while the delinquent was on duty. Proviso appended to Regulation 351-A merely controls the main proceedings. The same would apply in the exigencies of the situation envisaged therein, namely, when the proceedings were initiated after retirement and not prior thereto. 15. Explanation appended to Regulation 351-A provides for a legal fiction in terms whereof departmental proceedings would be deemed to have been instituted when the charges are framed against the pensioner or issued or the delinquent has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date.” 26. The observations made by the Apex Court as noted herein above, are also attracted in the present case. 27. This brings us to the last point of consideration that the impugned order dated 18.2.2010 is violative of the principles of natural justice. Admittedly, the impugned order has been passed after expiry of a period more than 2 years and 6 months from the date of superannuation of the petitioner-appellant. A perusal of the impugned order clearly goes to show that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner-appellant prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 18.2.2010. The impugned order has serious civil consequences inasmuch it has the effect of curtailing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner-appellant. Such an order could not have been passed without affording notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellant and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable on that score also. 28. In view of the discussions made herein above, it is apparent that the impugned order dated 18.2.2010 passed by the respondent No. 2 the Chief Audit Officer, Co-operative Societies and Panchayat is manifestly illegal and therefore, the same cannot be sustained. The learned Single Judge erred in law in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant. Consequently, the Special Appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgement and order dated 27.9.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The impugned order dated 18.2.2010 passed by the respondent No. 2 the Chief Audit Officer, Co-operative Societies and Panchayat, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, Annexure-10 to the writ petition is quashed. A writ of mandamus is accordingly issued directing the respondents to recalculate the pensionary benefits admissible to the petitioner-appellant. The impugned order dated 18.2.2010 passed by the respondent No. 2 the Chief Audit Officer, Co-operative Societies and Panchayat, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, Annexure-10 to the writ petition is quashed. A writ of mandamus is accordingly issued directing the respondents to recalculate the pensionary benefits admissible to the petitioner-appellant. The consequential exercise regarding revision of pension of the petitioner-appellant shall be undertaken within a period of one two months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. 29. With the aforesaid directions, the Special Appeal is allowed.