SURESH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, J. -
(1.) THE petitioner is an ex -army man. On pre -mature retirement, he was re -employed in the establishment of U.P. Jal Nigam as Junior Engineer
on 24th August, 1984. Pursuant to the Government Order dated 31st March,
1970, the petitioner was sanctioned dearness allowance on the basic pay scale plus pension payable by the Army. Therefore, the order with regard
to sanction of dearness allowance was passed on 10th February, 1987 and
he had hitherto been enjoying this benefit until the impugned order dated
17th March, 2007 was passed. By the impugned order, all of a sudden, without giving any hearing whatsoever the aforesaid benefit of granting
dearness allowance has been withdrawn.
(2.) IN the counter affidavit, it has been said that the benefit which has been given to the petitioner is not permissible under law even
going by the Government Order dated 31st March, 1970. As such, on the
strength of subsequent order dated 19th August, 1986, the said benefit
was withdrawn. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even
assuming 1996 order provides for non -payment of dearness allowance to the
employees like petitioner, such order cannot have retrospective operation
as the petitioner appointed in 1984 and the benefit of dearness allowance
was granted taking into consideration of the amount of pension and basic
pay. He contends that this is absolutely whimsical action on the part of
the respondents as inconsistent case has been made out in the counter
affidavit wherein it is stated that the benefit has been withdrawn
relying on 1997 order.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submits that the benefit, if any, given to the petitioner is illegal and wrongful and actually he
is given double benefit. Accordingly, in order to set the matter right,
this benefit of granting dearness allowance has been withdrawn.
It is admitted position that the petitioner was granted the benefit of dearness allowance as mentioned in the order dated 10th
February, 1987, and this benefit was given from the date of his
appointment. Therefore, the petitioner until the impugned order was
passed was enjoying this benefit. It appears from the impugned order,
this benefit has been withdrawn relying on a subsequent order dated 9th
August, 1996. I am of the view as rightly contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that order of 1996 cannot have any
retrospective operation to withdraw the benefit granted to the petitioner
in 1984. Moreover, I fail to understand why the respondents took so much
time to withdraw benefit in the year 2007 when according to the
respondents benefit should be withdrawn on the basis of order of 1996.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.