The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in administrative orders and the inability to recover payments made under bona fide mistake.

A. K. YOG, K. N. OJHA, JJ.

( 1 ) THE claimant-respondent of this writ-petition Naubat Singh was appointed on 31. 5. 1961 as panchayat Mantri : he became Panchayat Sewak and thereafter Village Panchayat Officer : which was declared Government Service cadre with effect from 1. 10. 1971. , vide Government order dated 28. 9. 1971 : on completion of 10 years continuous service claimant-respondent was given Selection Grade with effect from 1. 7. 1982 ; under para 10 of the Government order dated 3. 6. 1989 he became entitled to and was granted promotional pay scale on completion of 6 years satisfactory service : the claimant-respondent received promotional pay scale with effect from 1. 7. 1988 : he continued to work without objection at any point of time with regard to grant of selection grade and promotional pay scale, he retired on 30. 12. 1996 on attaining age of superannuation at the age of 58 years ; on retirement his usual pensionary benefits were not released : he was. however, given some pensionary benefits in April, 1999 but not paid other arrears ; the claimant-respondent represented against arbitrary withholding of pensionary benefits ; this apparently ignited and given rise to re-calling action on the part of the pension department which, vide letter dated 21. 6. 1999, raised an objection on the ground that the claimant-respondent was wrongly granted selection grade/promotional pay scale about 20 years back without giving notice or opportunity of hearing to the claimant (in violation of principles of natural justice) and State Government agencies passed impugned orders of recovery alleging excess payments for three years : being aggrieved the claimant-respondent filed Claim Petition no. 1781 of 1999. Naubat Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. ; the State of U. P. filed written statements : parties led an evidence and were heard as they desired, finally the State Public services Tribunal U. P. vide impugned judgment and order dated 4. 10. 2002 partly allowed the aforesaid claim petition whereby it quashed the impugned order of recovery dated 22. 3. 1999. (Annexure-No. 1 to the claim petition) and another impugned order dated 21. 6. 1999 (Annexure-No. 2 to the said claim petition) along with other claim petitions mentioned therein (Annexure-No. 5 to the writ petition) ; Tribunal left it open for the petitioners to give opportunity of hearing to the concerned if so desired, (on receiving certified copies of the impugned judgments) and decide the question as to whether grant/fixation in selection grade and promotional pay scale was not proper and granted prematurely in the past against relevant government orders, rules etc. ; in case petitioner was not eligible or by oversight or mistake got selection grade/promotional pay scale then correctly fix pay as per Government order in question and accordingly calculate pensions in future.

( 2 ) THE Tribunal has referred to several judgments of the Apex Court and held that once payment, like present case is made, even though under bona fide mistake, the same cannot be recovered later but on the basis of proper calculation relying upon correct interpretation of relevant government orders can be done for making payment as may be actually due.

( 3 ) THERE is no whisper or even on iota of evidence to show that the beneficiary, the present respondent, was in any manner instrumental in misrepresenting facts when alleged wrong fixation was done or selection grade or promotional pay scale was given.

( 4 ) THE petitioners have come up before this Court against the above mentioned impugned order of the Tribunal partly allowing claim petition against them.

( 5 ) WE shall not fail to express that it cannot be appreciated on the part of the State Government, its officers ; that the State has already attempted to indulge in digging old matters which too old and attempting to raise forgotten issues. Let the respondent appreciate that rule of reasonableness, fair play and good conscience particularly

Click Here to Read the rest of this document