The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents cannot re-fix the pay and withhold/deduct pensionary benefits after a decade, and that pensionary benefits should be calculated based on the actual last pay drawn by the petitioner.

1. Petitioner who retired from service as Sub-Inspector of Police on 31st May, 2002 is aggrieved of re-fixation of his salary behind his back, withholding his gratuity and deduction therefrom to the tune of Rs. 41,442/- and less fixation of his pensionary benefits by respondents.

2. Following reliefs have been claimed in the writ petition.

i) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to re-fix all the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the basis of the actual pay drawn by the petitioner on the date of is retirement i.e. 31st May, 2002 in accordance with his Last Pay Certificate.

ii) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay to the petitioner arrears of all pensionary benefits after re-fixing the same along with interest @ 12% per annum.

iii) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing Order No. 179 of 2003 dated 18th February, 2003 passed by Respondent No. 2 whereby the salary of the petitioner was re-fixed after the retirement of the petitioner without any notice to the petitioner and behind the back of the petitioner,

iv) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 4 to produce before this Hon'ble Court, the copy of Order No. 1221 of 2002 dated 31st December, 2002 whereby the salary of the petitioner has been re-fixed behind the back of the petitioner and further writ of Certiorari for quashing the same;

3. It is averred in the petition that petitioner has rendered 38 years of service in police department. In the year 1988 when he was working as Head Constable, his pay was re-fixed to keep him at par with his junior. He was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector in 1991 and subsequently as Sub Inspector of Police. He retired on 31st May, 2002. His last drawn pay was to the tune of Rs. 12599/-. Respondent No. 3-Accountant General raised objections regarding wrong pay fixation of petitioner when matter for release of pensionary benefits of petitioner was under consideration. An amount of Rs. 70000/- was withheld from the gratuity of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 unilaterally worked out excess pay drawn on the basis of communication of respondent No. 3. This was done behind the back of the petitioner. Thus pay of the petitioner was re-fixed after his retirement in terms of order No. 179 of 2003 dated 18.02.2003. Re-fixation of pay resulted in substantial reduction of the basic pay. Respondent No. 4 re-fixed the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the basis of re-fixed pay. Deduction of Rs.41442/- was ordered from the withheld amount of gratuity and recovery was effected accordingly. However, the balance amount of Rs. 28558/- too was not released in favour of the petitioner. It is further averred in the petition that respondent No. 4 Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda had fixed salary of petitioner vide his Order No. 2165 of 1998 dated 30th November, 1998 in terms of SRO 75 of 1992. Petitioner, who had been placed under suspension at the time of issuance of SRO 72 of 1992 was later reinstated with all benefits and promoted as well. Thus, he claims, there was nothing wrong in the pay fixation done by respondent No. 4-Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda.

4. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 have contested the petition on the ground that re-fixation of salary of petitioner was made after objection raised by respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4 vide Order No. 1221 of 2002 dated 31.12.2002 re-fixed the salary of the petitioner up to 01.11.1998. After receiving the said fixation respondent No. 2 vide Order No. 179 of 2003 dated 18.02.2003 re-fixed the pay of the petitioner up to 31.05.2002 and on the basis of such re-fixation of pay, statement showing the recovery was drawn up.

5. Respondent No. 3 has also filed objections contesting the petitioner's claim on the ground that on receipt of pension papers from respondent No. 2 in may 2002 it was observed that the pay of the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document