HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

PRAYER

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the gratuity and leave encashment along with interest @ of 18% per annum. Further respondents be directed to release the amount of provident fund and other benefits along with interest @ of 18% per annum. Further pay of petitioner be refixed and his retirement benefits be revised accordingly and same be paid to him with interest @ of 18% per annum Lastly it is prayed that no recovery be made from the petitioner if it is found that the excess payment has been made to the petitioner.

CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk with respondent No.5 on 03.06.1982, was promoted to the post of Inspector on 22.09.2016, and thereafter superannuated from service on 31.03.2023 while serving in the office of respondent No.4. At the time of retirement, the petitioner was drawing a basic pay of Rs.76,300/-, and upon addition of 34% Dearness Allowance, his total emoluments comes out to be Rs.1,02,242/-. It is contended that the retiral benefits of the petitioner are liable to be computed on the basis of the said last drawn pay. The petitioner rendered an unblemished service of 41 years and, accordingly, his gratuity is stated to be payable on the basis of qualifying service of 41 years, amounting to Rs.24,18,417/-. It is further submitted that prior to the retirement of the petitioner, the office of respondent No.5 had addressed communications to respondent No.4 seeking refixation of the petitioner’s pay; however, no action was taken. Subsequently, on 30.06.2023, the petitioner came to know that the office of the Regional Deputy Director (Local Audit), Bathinda, had raised certain objections in the pension case of the petitioner, alleging that his pay had been wrongly fixed by grant of excess increments and incorrect pay scales, and recommending recovery after revision of pension, as is discernible from Annexure P-1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that perusal of the record reveals that the last drawn pay of the petitioner was revised and re-fixed at Rs.69,800/- vide letter dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure R-4/1). It is further the stand of the respondents that the petitioner’s pay had allegedly been incorrectly fixed since the year 1982, despite the fact that the petitioner had already retired on 31.03.2023. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.4 have failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation or justification as to the basis or authority under which such retrospective refixation of pay has been undertaken, particularly with effect from the date of initial appointment. The impugned action is asserted to be in contravention of Rule 11.4(b)(iii) of the relevant PCS Rules, as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while referring to Annexure R-1, submit that upon promotion as Senior Clerk on 01.01.1989, the petitioner was erroneously granted more than one annual increment. It is further contended that the benefit of 8 years Assured Career Progression (ACP) was wrongly granted to the petitioner on 01.06.1994, whereas the same was actually due on 01.01.1997. Additionally, the petitioner was extended the pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 w.e.f. 01.01.1996, though he was allegedly entitled only to the scale of Rs.4400-7000. It is further submitted that the benefits of 16 years and 24 years ACP were prematurely granted on 03.06.1998 and 03.06.2006, respectively, whereas the same were due on 01.01.2005 and 01.01.2013 in accordance with the applicable rules. As such, the present petition lacks merit and deserves dismissal.

OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the pa