- (1.) The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 26.09.2012 whereby his representation for revision of pensionary benefits has been rejected.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Cane Supervisor on 21.07.1955 and confirmed on the said post on 01.04.1965. His basic pay as Cane Supervisor was Rs. 650-735 and thereafter he was granted selection grade pay by an order dated 11.12.1984 and his basic salary was fixed in the selection grade of 1200-2040. However, he was paid salary at the rate of Rs.650 per month. He represented against the same but no heed was paid and ultimately the petitioner retired from service as Cane Development Inspector on 30.11.1990. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.21455 of 2011 for payment of arrears of salary and fixation of pensionary benefits of the post of Cane Development Inspector. The Writ Petition was disposed of by the Court by order dated 15.04.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to represent before the Cane Commissioner, U.P. It is stated that in pursuance of the directions of the Court the impugned order dated 26.09.2012 has been passed. It is stated that at the time of retirement the scale of pay of Cane Development Inspector was 1350-2200 but the petitioner was paid salary only of Rs.650 whereas he should have been paid Rs.1350.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and in paragraph 4 thereof it is stated that the petitioner was posted as Cane Development Inspector and it is stated that the petitioner while posted as Cane Development Inspector had embezzled an amount of Rs.2,94,503.98 in the Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd., District Barabanki wherefore he had been placed under suspension by order dated 29.11.1988. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him and thereafter providing him full opportunity of hearing the enquiry officer found the charges of embezzlement of Rs.2,94,503.98 to be proved. The petitioner during these proceedings was placed under suspension and he retired from service as such on 30.11.1990. It is also stated that after superannuation the disciplinary authority by the order dated 03.04.1997 imposed the penalty as follows: (A) Except to subsistence allowance, no salary shall be payable to the petitioner for the period during which he was placed under suspension. (B) The amount of Rs.2,94,503.98 shall be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. (c) A First Information Report be lodged against the petitioner.;