An employee cannot have their pay grade altered post-retirement beyond 34 months without notice, as this violates natural justice and established guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Petitioner, who has retired on 31st March, 2017 as Senior Assistant from the office of District Magistrate, Varanasi, is aggrieved by the order dated 15th May, 2017 passed by the Collector, Varanasi disputing the grade pay of Rs.4600 with an additional one increament given to the petitioner on 22nd December, 2011 reducing his pay to Rs.50,500/- on the date of his superannuation as against Rs.52,000/- as per the chart issued from the office of Collector, Varanasi under his signature and appended as Annexure - 13 to the writ petition.

3. Two fold arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner:

(a). Such back date correction in the pay grade could not have been done by the respondents in view of the provisions as contained under the Government order dated 16th January, 2007, which only permits any correction in matter of pay fixation up to 34 months prior to the date of retirement; and

(b). The order impugned has been passed after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and that too without giving any notice much less a show cause notice and hence order has rendered unsustainable for want of compliance of principles of natural justice.

4. In support of first point learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authority of Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and others , 2014 (16) SCC 444 .

5. A counter affidavit has been filed in the matter on behalf of the State respondents in which plea has been taken vide paragraph 3 that in terms of the Government order dated 8th December, 2008 only fresh appointee was entitled to grade pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band of Rs.12540 totalling to Rs.17140 as on 1st January, 2006 and since petitioner had already been in service as on 8th December, 2008, he could not have been given benefit under such Government order.

6. A further plea has been taken vide paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit that order under challenge was only a consequential order as by way of information given to the petitioner on the basis some letter issued on 16th March, 2017 by Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Varanasi, which formed the basis to examine original records and also consideration of letter written by the petitioner dated 14th June, 2017. The letter was taken into consideration and records were further thoroughly examined and a detailed report was submitted on 18th May, 2018. He has placed before the Court the letter of the Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Varanasi dated 16th March, 2017 brought on record as Annexure - 11 to the writ petition as well as the report dated 18th May, 2018 brought on record as Annexure - 17 to the writ petition.

7. It is next argued by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that an employee is entitled to pay scale and pay grade assigned for the post in question and for any wrongful pay fixation, a mistake due to inadvertence, he cannot walk away with the higher pay scale as ultimately it is a loss caused to public exchequer and nobody stands any disadvantageous position for any correction of pay scale if carried out rightfully. However, as far as Government order as well as judgment of Supreme Court is concerned, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that these are the question of law that can be examined and the matter can be disposed of in the light of the authorities cited and testing upon the same the pleadings raised by the respective parties in this case.

8. Hav