Contractual terms regarding honorarium for re-employed retired personnel, when freely accepted and not contrary to law, are binding; an employee cannot unilaterally seek to alter terms to include allowances explicitly excluded at the time of appointment.

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

(1) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had been preferred by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents in acting contrary to their own advertisement and not making payment towards the salary, instead paid honorarium calculated on the basis of Basic pay minus pension instead of gross pay last drawn minus pension, which is contrary to M.P. Fundamental Rules defining the term pay as well as Government of Madhya Pradesh circular dated 03/09/2011.

(2) Facts relevant for the adjudication of the present controversy are that respondent No.2 University through an advertisement in a news paper dated 19/10/2011 invited applications from retired persons for appointment on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer on contract basis. In the advertisement it was mentioned that the appointment would be on the basis of last pay drawn minus pension. The petitioner applied for the said post and through the selection process, he got selected and vide letter dated 10/01/2012 he was appointed. On 16/01/2012 the petitioner moved an application to the Accounts Controller of Respondent no.2 to fix his salary in accordance with the advertisement, as he is not entitled for an Honorarium, rather he was entitled to get salary as mentioned in the advertisement i.e. last pay draw minus pension and according to it he is entitled for Rs.19,646/- p.m. and not Rs.13885/- as has been assessed. In the above context reliance was placed upon the circular of the State Government dated 03/09/2011 wherein under clause 8 general conditions for appointment on contractual basis are provided:

“(8) l afonk fu;qfDr dh lkekU; 'krZs fuEukuqlkj gksaxh &

(1) lafonk lsok esa fu;qfDr ds fy, vof/k ,d o"k Z gksxhA

(2) lafonk lsok esa izfrekg ,dtkb Z osru ns; gksxkA

(3) ,dtkbZ osru fu/kk Zfjr dju s d s fy; s lsokfuo`fRr ds le; izkIr dqy osru esa ls isa'ku dh jkf'k ?kVkdj tks jkf'k vk; sxh og jkf'k lafonk osru ds :i esa ns; gksxhA bl lafonk osru ij fdlh izdkj dk eagxkbZ HkRrk ;k vU; HkRrs ns; ugha gksaxsA

(4) isa'ku i`Fkd ls izkIr djus dh ik=rk gksxh rFkk isa'ku ij ns; jkgr dh ik=rk gksxhA

(5) lafonk fu;qfDr d s nk Sjku nksuksa i{kksa esa ls fdlh ,d i{k }kjk ,d ekg dh iwoZ lwpuk ;k mld s ,ot ~ esa ,d ekg dk osru nsdj lafonk fu;qfDr lekIr dh tk ld sxhA

(6) lafonk fu;qfDr d s nk Sjku 'kkldh; vkokl x`g ds vkoaVu@vkf/kiR; dh ik=rk ugha gksxh] mUgsa dsoy ik=rkuqlkj x`g HkkM +k HkRrk ns; gksxkA lafonk fu;qfDr ds le; ;fn mlds uke ls 'kkldh; vkokl vkaofVr gksxk ;k vkf/kiR; esa gksxk rks mls 'kkldh; vkokl fjDr dju s dk izek.k izLrqr dju s ij gh lafonk fu;qfDr ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djk;k tk,xkA

(7) vLFkkb Z 'kkldh; lsodksa d s leku vodk'k dh ik=rk gksxhA

(8) ;k=k HkRrs dh ik=rk mlh izdkj gksxh tks fd lsokfuo `fRr ds rRdky iwoZ FkhA

(9) lafonk ij fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ij e/; izns'k flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e] 1965 ykxw gksaxsA

(10) lafonk fu;qfDr vkns'k tkjh djus ds fnukad ls 45 fnu rd izHkko'khy gksxkA bl vof/k esa ;fn lafonk ij fu;qDr O;fDr }kjk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k ugha fd;k rks lafonk fu;qfDr dk vkns'k Lor% izHkko'kwU; gks tk; sxkA”

(3) On 25/02/2012 the order of pay fixation was issued by respondent No.2, and honorarium as payable according to the advertisement was directed to be paid. The petitioner on receipt of the said order objected and requested the respondents to amend the order, but according to the petitioner the Accounts Comptroller misinterpreted the fundamental rules and circulars of the State Government and overlooked them. The petitioner then submitted representations on 19/06/2012, 04/09/2012