Benefits conferred for an extended period cannot be withdrawn without just cause, especially when no fault lies with the employee.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

1. The petitioner as Junior Hindi Stenographer was in the employment with the Madhya Pradesh Government for the period from 23.04.1977 to 20.11.1985. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was granted employment with the respondent employer on 22.11.1985. Consequential to her earlier service for a period of seven years with the Madhya Pradesh Government, at the time of inception in the service with the respondent no. 3 five advance increments were granted to the petitioner.

2. As a sequel of above, in the beginning the salary to which the petitioner was entitled was calculated considering her five advance increments which were conferred on her. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner stood superannuated on 30.06.2012.

3. At the time of superannuation her pay fixation was carried out and it was discovered that the five advance increments as were conferred on the petitioner in 1991 with effect from 1985 i.e. date of her appointment, were by mistake, and as such re-calculation was carried out and deduction was sought.

4. The petitioner after receipt of the same, approached before the Central Administrative Tribunal questioning not only the adjustment/deduction but also the reduction in pension because of re-fixation of her salary.

5. The Tribunal vide order impugned dated 26.07.2019, partly allowed the claim of the petitioner thereby restraining the respondents from carrying out any recovery in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334. The Tribunal, however, refused to grant relief to the petitioner with regard to restoration of her last pay drawn which has affected her pension adversely.

6. It is the contention of Mr. Khanorkar, counsel appearing for the petitioner that five advance increments were conferred on the petitioner in view of her past service for a period from 23.04.1977 to 20.11.1985 with the Madhya Pradesh Government in the capacity of Junior Hindi Stenographer. Such increments were conferred on the petitioner by virtue of the order dated 15.11.1991 with effect from joining in service with the respondent no. 3 on 22.11.1985.

7. The petitioner stood superannuated on 30.06.2012 after having completed 58 years of age. The respondents accordingly calculated the pension to which the petitioner was entitled at Rs. 9,755/- as is informed by the respondent no. 2 to the respondent no. 3 vide communication dated 28.08.2012.

8. It appears that it was decided thereafter to withdraw the five additional increments given to the petitioner and such deduction was sought right from 1985 i.e. from the date of her appointment with the respondent employer till the date of her superannuation i.e. 30.06.2012. Accordingly, a communication to that effect was issued to the petitioner on 22.10.2012 which has prompted the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. After adjusting the five additional increments, pension order was sent on 15.01.2013 to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 and her pension was reduced to Rs. 9,395/- as against Rs. 9,755/- and which has adverse impact on gratuity, commutation of pension, leave encashment, etc.

9. The pension of the petitioner was withheld for recovery of all the benefits arising out of five additional increments granted to the petitioner. It appears that the Central Administrative Tribunal, before whom the petitioner has questioned the order impugned of not only withdrawal of five increments but also revision of her pension, has partly allowed her Original Application (OA) thereby directing that the recovery be not effected.

10. In the aforesaid background, the counsel appearing for the petitioner has restricted the challenge in the petition to the extent of payment of pension based on last salary drawn without adjusting/reducing the five increments i.e. calculated at Rs. 9,755/- as against offered amount of Rs. 9,395. The counsel for the petitioner claimed that the fiv