- (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred assailing the order dated 28/10/2009, in terms of which a sum of Rs 2 lakhs has been retained from being disbursed to the petitioner along with his other retiral dues. A perusal of the said order indicates that in the course of drawing up of pension papers of the petitioner it came to light that certain promotional pay scales were wrongly accorded to the petitioner and consequently a sum of Rs.2 lakhs approximately was paid to the petitioner in excess during his service. It was in the above background that the order impugned was passed.
(2.) THIS Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Yatindra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the indisputed facts which emerge from the records are that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in 1973 in the institution in question. This institution is admittedly governed by the provisions of the U.P. Basic Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1972 and the provisions of the U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971. The petitioner pursuant to the provisions of a Government Order dated 24/10/2007, was granted revised pay scale in modification of the earlier orders issued in this regard. As per the case set up in the writ petition, the pay scale of non -teaching and teaching staff was revised as far back as in 1996, consequent to which the pay of the petitioner was fixed in the scale of Rs.5000 -8000/ - with effect from 1996 and over a period of time the pay drawn by him was revised in the said band till he attained the age of superannuation on 31/10/2008.
(3.) IT appears that certain anomalies were noticed by the State Government with reference to the provisions of the Government Order dated 24/10/2007 and the consequential fixation of pay of non -teaching staff in institutions governed by the provisions of the Act, 1972. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, an association of non -teaching employees appear to have petitioned this Court by means of Writ Petition No.32103/2008. This Court after hearing parties disposed of the said writ petition with a direction requiring the Principal Secretary (Finance) Government of Uttar Pradesh to decide the claims set up by the Association. It appears that it was this order of the Court which prodded the Government into action and it was pursuant to the directions issued by this Court that the fixation of employees in the promotional pay scale was reconsidered. Consequent to the said reconsideration the respondents found that the petitioner in the course of his service had been paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs approximately in excess and accordingly by the order dated 28/10/2009 provided that the aforesaid sum be withheld and the other retiral dues of the petitioner be released. Learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition has submitted that the petitioner had enjoyed the benefits of the revised pay scale right from 1996 till he retired in 2008. He has submitted that during this span of more than a decade the respondents did not raise any objection to the payments made to the petitioner or his placement in the pay scale in question. He has further submitted that in any view of the matter the disbursement of pay pursuant to his placement in the revised pay scale from time to time was not pursuant to any concealment of fact or misrepresentation practised/committed by the petitioner. In light of the above, he would submit, that the deductions affected from his retiral dues are wholly arbitrary and illegal. In support of his above submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Chandi Prasad Uniyal Vs. State of Uttrakhand and Ors, 2012 5 AWC 5320, for the proposition that the recovery of the alleged excess amount would cause extreme hardship and, therefore, would pray that this Court command the respondents to release the sums retained.;