Jai Narain Singh vs Haryana State Social Welfare Advisory Board

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court through these two writ petitions with a two fold grievance. In Civil Writ Petition No. 13558 of 1993, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated October 26, 1993, by which an order for the recovery of Rs. 1,08,278.60P has been passed against him. He prays that this order be quashed. After the passing of this order, the petitioner had retired from the service of respondent-Board on June 30, 1998. The petitioner was not given his retiral benefits. Consequently, he filed the second petition, viz., Civil Writ Petition No. 16528 of 1998, with the prayer that the respondent-Board be directed to release the pension and the other amounts due to him on account of leave encashment, gratuity and the commuted value of pension.

The respondent-Board contested the petitioner''s claim for the release of retiral benefits, inter-alia, on the ground that a substantial amount of money had to be recovered from him. In view of the defence raised on behalf of the respondent-Board, a direction was issued that both the writ petitions should be heard together. These have, consequently, been placed for hearing before this Bench.

The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner had joined service with the respondent-Board as a Personal Assistant on February 12, 1970. After the petitioner had worked for eight years, his services were terminated on January 3, 1978. About three months later, the petitioner was again appointed in the service of the Board. This time, the appointment was, vide order dated April 13, 1978, to the post of Assistant. After having joined, the petitioner represented to the Board that while fixing his pay, the benefit of the service rendered by him from February 12, 1970 to January 3, 1978, be given to him. The request was accepted vide order dated April 24, 1987. It was decided that the period of service already rendered by the petitioner shall count for the grant of increments and pension. Vide order dated May 6, 1987, the petitioner''s pay was fixed in the scale of Rs. 225/- 500/-, to which he had been appointed at the initial stage. Almost three years later, vide order dated April 19, 1990, the Board withdraw its order of May 6, 1987. The petitioner represented. Vide order dated December 26, 1990, the benefit was restored to him. However, three years later, it was again withdrawn vide order dated October 26, 1993. It is in this situation that the petitioner has approached this Court. He claims that the benefit of the service rendered by him from February 12, 1970 to January 3, 1978 could have been granted by the competent authority. It was granted. Thereafter, the respondents could not have withdrawn this benefit under any rule or law. In any event, they were required to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before any order to his prejudice was passed: None was granted. Thus, the action is vitiated. Resultantly, the petitioner prays that the order dated October 26, 1993, be quashed. In the second petition, the petitioner''s prayer is that having retired from service, he is entitled to the release of the retiral benefits.

Separate written statements have been filed in both the cases. The claim of the respondents in reply to Civil Writ Petition No. 13558 of 1993 is to the effect that "in the audit report of the year 1989-90 and 1990-91, the over payment of increment, pension and gratuity benefits etc., to the petitioner was pointed out and it was directed that the recovery may be effected from him under advice to audit ---------the petitioner never challenged his termination order dated January 3, 1978-------- the irregularities committed by the then Chairman without seeking approval from the competent authority i.e. the Central Board was corrected under the directions of the competent authority given vide its letter dated July 13, 1993, a true translated copy of which is annexed as Annexure R-8. Consequently, the pay of the petitioner is rightly fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 225/- - 500/- as per directions of the Central Board with effect from April 13, 1978........"

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Admittedly, the petitioner had joined service on February 12, 1970. He had continued to work as a Personal Assistant till January 3, 1978. The post was in the pay scale of Rs. 225/- - 500/-. On January 3, 1978, when the petitioner''s services were terminated, he would have been drawing a basic pay of Rs. 330/-. After the termination of his services, he was again appointed on April 13, 1978. The appointment was to the post of Assistant. It was admittedly in the same scale of pay, viz., Rs. 225/- - 500/-. By its order of April 24, 1987, the competent authority had merely protected the pay which the petitioner was drawing at the time of the termination of his services. It had only accorded the benefit of the service which had been actually rendered by him. It has not been shown that the action of the authority was in violation of any express provisions of law or rule or any circular issued by the Central or the State Board. Resultantly, the petitioner''s pay was fixed and the benefit of even the revised pay scale was granted to him. Almost three years later, on April 19, 1990, the benefit was withdrawn. This was done without the grant of any opportunity. When the petitioner protested, the benefit was restored vide order dated December 26, 1990. However, the happiness was short lived. On October 26, 1993, again the benefit was withdrawn. On none of these occasions was any opportunity afforded to the petitioner. Neither the Central Board nor the State Board even asked for the petitioner''s explanation. They did not even inform him the ground on which the benefit was sought to be withdrawn. Even a copy of the audit objection, on which the whole case is sought to have been re-examined, was not forwarded to him. To say the least, the action was totally violative of the principle of natural justice. It was against the elementary principle of fair play. It was absolutely arbitrary and unfair. It cannot, thus, be sustained.

In view of the above, we allow Civil Writ Petition No. 13558 of 1993. The impugned action of the respondents, in ordering the recovery from the petitioner, is set-aside.

In the second petition, the claim is with regard to the release of the retiral benefits. It is not disputed that the petitioner had actually retired from service on June 30, 1998. More than a year has elapsed. His retiral benefits have not been released. Only, provisional pension, which is far less than actually due, has been released. No justification for with-holding the retiral benefits has been given. The pension, gratuity and leave encashment etc., are admittedly due to the petitioner. These should have been released within three months from the date of retirement. The respondents having failed to do it, they are directed to do the needful within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to this payment with interest @ 12% from September 1, 1998 to the date of actual payment.

Both the petitions are allowed in the above terms. It was a fit case for the grant of costs. However, we desist from doing so only on account of the fact that the Board is meant to help the poor people of this country.