DILIP GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in calculating the pension on the basis of re-fixation of the pay-scale of the petitioner with retrospective effect and deduction of the excess salary paid to the petitioner from the retiral benefits. He has, accordingly, sought the quashing of the orders dated 2nd March, 2006 and 20th January, 2007.
(2.) THE records indicate that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk on 8th May, 1964 and he retired from service on 31st January, 2006 after attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, the Department forwarded the details of retiral dues. However, the Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Allahabad Division has determined the retiral dues of the petitioner after refixing the pay-scale and has also deducted the excess salary paid to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of pay-scale. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not responsible for the wrong fixation of the pay-scale and so the respondents cannot deduct the excess salary that was paid to the petitioner from his retiral benefits. He has also submitted that fresh fixation can be done only after giving opportunity to the petitioner. In support of these contentions, he has placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15405 of 2007 (Rajwant Singh v. State of U.P. and others), decided on 17th July, 2008 and Writ Petition No. 76102 of 2005 (Prem Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others), decided on 17th October, 2006.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel submitted, in view of the averments made in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit, that the petitioner cannot make any grievance since he submitted an application to the Authorities that the excess amount paid to the petitioner may be deducted and then the retiral benefits may be released. The petitioner has denied having made such an application in the Rejoinder Affidavit. The respondents have not annexed the said application in the counter affidavit and, therefore, it is not possible to accept their version that the petitioner had moved such an application.;