SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Manipur) 129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Potsangbam Victoria Devi - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 631 of 2021
Decided On : 06-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Advocate, for the Petitioners; Mr. BR Sharma, Sr.PCCG, for the Respondent No. 1; Mr. Servan Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2; Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, Sr. Advocate, for the Respondent No. 3

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that financial benefits given without misrepresentation or fraud are not liable to be recovered, and any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is null and void.

Headnote:

Pension - Service Pension Calculation - [LDC, UDC, Accountant, Section Officer, Administrative Officer, MACP Scheme] - The court quashed the impugned letter and provisional pension payment order, directing the release of service pension and retirement benefits by calculating the pension at the scale of pay enjoyed by the petitioner at the time of retirement.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, who held various positions including LDC, UDC, Accountant, Section Officer, and Administrative Officer, retired and sought release of her service pension and retirement benefits. The impugned letter and provisional pension payment order were challenged in court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the reduction of grade pay without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing violated the principles of natural justice. It held that the financial benefits given to the petitioner without misrepresentation were not liable to be recovered. The court also noted that the excess payment was not due to any misrepresentation or fraud on the petitioner's part.

Issues: The issues included the reduction of grade pay without due process, the legality of the provisional pension payment order, and the recovery of alleged excess payments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice would be a nullity. It cited precedents to support the non-recoverability of excess payments made without misrepresentation or fraud by the employee.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned letter and provisional pension payment order, and directed the release of the petitioner's service pension and retirement benefits at the scale of pay enjoyed at the time of her retirement.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned letter dated 28.5.2020 and the provisional pension payment order dated 1.7.2020 and to direct the respondents to release the service pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner by calculating her pension at the scale of pay which she enjoyed at the time of her retirement.

2. Briefly stated case of the petitioner is as follows:-

The petitioner was initially appointed as LDC in Jawaharlal Nehru Manipur Dance Academy on 30.4.1979 and thereafter, she was appointed to a clear sanctioned vacant post on 27.10.1979 as LDC and then appointed as Cashier on 19.5.1982. On 25.8.1984, the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDC and after completion of the office procedure examination, she was promoted to the post of Accountant on 19.5.1986 and accordingly revised her pay from Rs.1400-2300 to Rs.1400-2600 with effect from 1.8.1990. On 29.6.1988, the post of Accountant was re-designated as Assistant and her pay was revised from Rs.1400-2600 to Rs.1400-2900 for the period from 13.5.1986 to 31.5.1995. On 29.9.2009, the scale of pay of the petitioner under the MACP scheme was revised in the scale pay of Rs.9300-34000-800 plus GP Rs.4200 to Rs.4600 with effect from 1.9.2008.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Section Officer in the sale of Rs.9300-34000 plus GP Rs.4800 with effect from 22.5.2014 on ad hoc basis and thereafter her ad hoc promotion was regularised on 4.10.2014 with effect from 22.5.2014. On 8.11.2016, her probation period was extended for another period of one year with effect from 23.5.2016 and on 2.12.2017, the service of the petitioner to the post of Section Officer was confirmed with effect from 23.5.2017.

4. Pursuant to the retirement of one N Ibetombi Devi with effect from 31.3.2019, a DPC meeting was held on 4.6.2019 and on the recommendation of the said DPC, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Administrative Officer on officiating basis with effect from 1.7.2019 in Level-10 of Pay Matrix under Revised Pay Rules, 2016. On 2.7.2019, the petitioner was allowed to look after the work of Section Officer (Accounts) in addition to her normal duties without any extra remuneration and retired from service on 31.12.2019 on superannuation.

5. According to the petitioner, after the retirement, her service pension and other retirement benefits have not been released. On 5.5.2020, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director, JNMDA for early release of her due pensionary benefits. While so, on 28.5.2020, the Section Officer (Admn), JNMDA addressed a letter to the Deputy Secretary (F&A), SangeetNatakAkademi, New Delhi, wherein it was stated that the pensioner has retired from service on superannuation after getting promotion to the post of Administrative Officer on 1.7.2019 with GP Rs.5400/- in PB-3 of Rs.15600- 39000. To bring finalisation for releasement of her retirement benefits, the respondent authorities reduced the Grade Pay of the petitioner from Rs.5400 to Rs.4600 alleging that the petitioner had applied for releasement of her pension and other retirement benefits. On 1.7.2020, the petitioner was given provisional pension. Since she is not satisfied with the provisional pension, the petitioner submitted two representations to release her full retirement benefits and also reason for giving provisional pension. Despite the receipt of the representations, the respondent authorities have not taken any steps. Assailing the letter dated 28.05.2020 and the provisional pension order dated 1.7.2020, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

6. The second respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the second respondent instructed all the constituent units of the Akedami to take corrective measures to withdraw the irregular scales and recovery has to be made from the employees/pensioners vide email letter dated 17.6.2020. Accordingly, the pay

                    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                    1
                    2
                    3
                    4
                    5
                    6
                    7
                    8
                    9
                    10
                    11
                    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                    supreme today icon
                    logo-black

                    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                    Please visit our Training & Support
                    Center or Contact Us for assistance

                    qr

                    Scan Me!

                    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                    whatsapp-icon Back to top