- (1.) Rejoinder-Affidavit has been filed today, which is taken on record. As parties have exchanged their affidavits with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is being decided finally.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents; and have perused the record.
(3.) A brief narration of facts would be useful to understand the controversy at hand. On 08.11.1975 the Director (Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine), U.P., Lucknow issued appointment letter thereby appointing the petitioners, along with others, on ad hoc basis, as Medical Officer in Subordinate (Gazetted) Medical Services (Ayurvedic and Unani), U.P. Pursuant to their appointment, the petitioners continued uninterruptedly in service and were posted at different hospitals. Ultimately, under the order of the Director (Ayurvedic and Unani Services), Govt. of U.P., Lucknow, dated 02.02.1982, their services were regularized under the U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (On Posts Within the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules 1979 (in short Rules, 1979). Thereafter, upon attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner no.1 retired from the post of Medical Officer, Rajkiya Ayurvedic Chikitsalaya, Dei, Deoria on 31.07.2006; the petitioner no.2 retired from the post of Medical Officer, Kurawal, Gorakhpur on 31.01.2006; and the petitioner no.3 retired from the post of Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Adhikari, Gorakhpur on 31.01.2006. On their retirement, pension payment orders were issued. As per Pension Payment Order dated 10.11.2006, the petitioner no.1 was awarded gratuity of Rs. 3,50,000/- and monthly pension of Rs. 5,471/- after adjustment of the commuted pension. The pension and gratuity of the petitioner no.1 was calculated by counting his service from the date of his initial ad hoc appointment as Medical Officer. Similarly, pension and gratuity of the petitioner nos.2 and 3 was fixed by counting their service from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment. Thereafter, pursuant to recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission, vide order dated 18.09.2009, pension of the petitioner no.1 was revised upwards. In this revised Pension Payment Order, dated 18.09.2009, also, the qualifying service of the petitioner no.1 was counted from the date of his initial ad hoc appointment. Similarly, pursuant to recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission, revised pension was made available to the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 by counting their qualifying service from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment. Later, on 13.07.2012, a revised pension payment order was issued by which, though the petitioner no.1 was shown entitled to full pension, the gratuity that was paid earlier to the petitioner no.1 was revised downwards by calculating the qualifying service from the date of the order of his regularisation in service and not from the date of his initial ad hoc appointment. Consequently, the revised Pension Payment Order required for recovery /adjustment of the excess payment made to the petitioner no.1 from his pension. Likewise, by separate orders dated 13.08.2012, the gratuity that was already paid to the petitioner nos.2 and 3 was revised downwards by calculating their qualifying service from the date of regularisation and not from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment and similar recovery/ adjustment was directed as in the case of the petitioner no.1. Pursuant to such revision, a sum of Rs. 96,603/- was directed to be recovered /adjusted/ deducted from the amount payable to the petitioner no.1 and Rs. 1,02,810/- from each of the other two petitioners.;