The recovery of excess amount due to mistake or wrong interpretation of rules cannot be made, and the benefit of promotion and consequential monetary benefits cannot be taken away without providing an opportunity of being heard to the affected person.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner- Mohammad Ramzan Tantray, through the medium of the instant petition, seeks quashment of impugned letter bearing no. FD/ELFAP/1091 dated 15.10.2014 passed by respondent no.4, whereby the respondent no.4 has recommended the respondent no.3 to effect the recovery on account of up gradation w.e.f 01.05.1994 till the date of superannuation of the petitioners. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to release all the pensionary benefits of the petitioner as pump operator, who attained the age of the superannuation on 31.03.2014 and release all monetary benefits with interest on account of superannuation of the petitioner as pump operator along with all consequential benefits.

Brief Facts of the Case:

2. Before proceeding further, this court deems it proper to take note of few facts shorn of unnecessary details, which are material to the determination of the issue involved in the instant case. The petitioner was appointed as daily wager to work as orderly in the respondent department in the year 1976 vide order no. 0-1/713-16 dated 02.06.1976, and in the year 1981, the respondent No.2, in the interests of administration, vide order No. SDA/VC of 1981 dated 27.04.1981, temporarily appointed the petitioner, who figured at Serial No.2 in the aforesaid order, as Chowkidar against an available temporary vacancy and also sanctioned the grade and other allowances as admissible under rules.

3. Further, vide another order bearing no. SDA/VC/503 of 1993 dated 18.09.1993, sanction was accorded for the change of designation of the petitioner from Chowkidar-cum-Orderly to Pump Operator, in his own pay and grade, in view of his having technical skill in operating pumps. Thereafter, vide order no. SDA/VC/113 of 1994 dated 25.06.1994, sanction was granted to six posts of pump operators/assistant operators from the grade of 750-940 to the grade of 940-1400, including the petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.1995.

4. The petitioner had been discharging his duties as pump operator and was receiving the salary as attached to the post. Nearing his retirement, a notification was issued under Order No. SDA/VC-4996-5008 dated 04.12.2013, wherein all the controlling heads were advised to issue NOCs in favour of the employees, including the petitioner, who had to retire in the time frame stipulated in the notification, and in pursuance thereof, petitioner approached various departments for issuance of NOCs and procured the same as there was nothing outstanding against the petitioner.

5. Finally, the case of the petitioner was processed for pensionary benefits, and the petitioner was very optimistic about it, but much to the chagrin of the petitioner, in the year 2014, he received a letter written by the respondent no. 4 vide no. FD/ELFAP/1091 dated 15.10.2014, wherein the respondent No.4 has mentioned that the petitioner stands upgraded from pay scale of Rs. 750-940 to the pay scale of Rs. 940-1400 against the rules in vogue and has, accordingly, requested the respondent no. 3 to effect the recovery on account of up-gradation w.e.f. 01.05.1994 till the date of superannuation and the excess payment drawn. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has, inter alia, sought the quashing of the impugned letter dated 15.10.2014 by way of filing the instant writ petition and also sought a direction to the respondents to release all the pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

6. Mr. Mohammad Ashraf Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the impugned order has been passed in a hot haste manner, without applying the rules and regulations on the subject, therefore, the impugned order cannot sustain the test of law and is therefore illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional, as such, deserves to be quashed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the respondents have not given any opportunity to t