The last salary drawn by the petitioner was to be taken into account for fixation of her pension, and any recovery ordered based on the withdrawal of Kramonnati benefits was illegal.

Rajendra Menon, J.

1. Petitioner is a retired employee and has retired from the post of Headmaster, Government Primary School. While in service, benefit of Kramonnati was granted to the petitioner, but now after retirement as the benefit of Kramonnati is being withdrawn and recovery ordered, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has decided similar question in Writ Petition No. 10919/2011 (Smt. Santosh Verma v. State of M.P. and others), vide order dated 19.7.2011.

2. In the case of Smt. Santosh Verma (supra), the matter was so dealt with and decided by this Court:

9. The fact remains that the petitioner has retired on 30th June, 2008 and on this date she was drawing the salary of Rs. 9,900/- basic. The Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter 'rules' for short) are squarely applicable in the case of the petitioner. The pension is to be fixed on the basis of last emolument drawn, which is defined in Rule 30 of the Rules. In a specific word it is said that the impression emolument means pay as defined in Rule 9(21) of the Fundamental Rules including dearness pay, if any, as determined by the order of the Government issued from time to time, which a Government servant was receiving immediately before his retirement or on the date of his death as the case may be. A plain and simple reading of this definition makes it clear that the last salary drawn by the petitioner was to be taken into account for fixation of her pension. If computation is done on the basis of this salary, which the petitioner was drawing, there was no question of any excess payment to the petitioner and no recovery whatsoever could have been ordered. In view of this, the order of recovery contained in the pension payment order (Annexure P-5) is per se illegal. The State Government while issuing the memos has made it clear that once the benefit of Kramonnati is granted, if the promotion is subsequently given in a pay scale, which is lesser than the pay scale of Kramonnati, the pay is to be refixed in the manner no loss is caused to the Government employee. In paragraph 4 of the circular order dated 18.08.2005 (Annexure P-7 to the writ petition) this particular aspect has been specifically dealt with and it is said that though on regular promotion after the grant of Kramonnati pay scale the pay is required to be refixed in the pay scale applicable to the promotional post but in case it is found that on account of grant of Kramonnati if a person is getting more salary than the maximum of the pay scale of the promotional post then to avoid the financial loss to such a person, excess amount than the maximum of the pay scale be given as personal pay. Therefore, it is clear that the act on the part of the official respondents was violative of the instructions of the State Government and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

10. The petition is, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to revise the salary of the petitioner on her promotion on the post of Lecturer as has been ordered vide order dated 29.08.2005 (Annexure P-2) in appropriate manner in terms of the circular dated 18.08.2005 (Annexure P-7) and calculating the salary of the petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn by her, the pension case of the petitioner be prepared. Entire amount of recovery deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner be refunded to her and proper pension be calculated, arrears of pension and other retiral dues be paid to her within a period of 3 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner will also get interest on the amount so deducted from her gratuity and on the amount of arrears of pension and other retiral dues from the date the same was due till the date of actual payment at the rate of 6% per annum.

3. Keeping in view the aforesaid, respondents are directed to examine the claim of the petitioner in the l