Post-retirement pay re-fixation and recovery without due process and authority violate established legal principles protecting employee rights.

J U D G M E N T

Petitioners retired from the service of the Kerala Water Authority while working as operators after enjoying the 3rd higher grade. Their grievance is against the re- fixation of their pay and pensionary benefits and also recovery made from the terminal benefits due to them consequent to the re-fixation.

2. The first petitioner commenced service as CLR worker under the Kerala Water Authority in the year 1979. He was absorbed as NMR with effect from 01.04.1984 and thereafter absorbed as Operator in the regular establishment, as per Ext.P6 order dated 28.10.2005, of the Kerala Water Authority. Similarly the second petitioner was also absorbed as Operator, as per Ext.P6 order in the scale of pay of Rs.3440-5385. By Ext.P7 order dated 24.01.2006, the first petitioner was granted first higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.1455-2440 and his pay was fixed at Rs.1565 as on 01.04.1996. Thereafter, his pay was fixed in the revised scale of Rs.3440-5385 at Rs.5510 on

01.04.2004. Simultaneously, his pay was fixed after granting second higher grade at Rs.6235/- as on 01.04.2005 in the scale of pay of Rs.5635-9135. By Ext.P8 order, the respondents modified higher grade granted to him reckoning the CLR service rendered by him in the years 1979 & 1981 and accordingly pay was fixed on grant of first higher grade with effect from 21.10.2005 in the scale of pay of Rs.4710-7110, the second higher grade also with effect from 21.10.2005 in the scale of pay Rs.5635-9135 and thereafter the 3rd higher grade on completion of 23 years of service with effect from 21.10.2005 in the scale of pay of Rs.6935-11460. Thereafter by Ext.P9 order his pay was fixed in the revised scale of pay of Rs.11410-20680 at Rs.14830 as on 01.10.2008. Similarly in the case of the second petitioner his pay was also fixed as per Ext.P18 order reckoning the CLR service with effect from 21.10.2005, as in the case of the first petitioner. By Ext.P20, his pay was fixed at Rs.14380 as on 01.04.2008 in the scale of pay of Rs.11410-20680 and thereafter by Ext.P10 and P21 orders dated 15.09.2010 to their detriment. In this order it was stated that the scale of pay allowed to them while granting the 2nd and 3rd time bound higher grade with effect from 21.10.2005 were irregular and hence the pay fixed in the revised scale (“Audit remarks”). Accordingly their pay was fixed in the lower scale of pay of Rs.4810- 7935 on grant of second higher grade and pay was fixed at Rs.5385 as on 21.10.2005. Similarly pay on grant of 3rd higher grade was fixed with effect from 21.10.2005 at Rs.6085 in the scale of pay of Rs.5135-8160 as on 01.10.2008. Thereafter the pay was fixed in the revised scale of pay of Rs.9360-16180 and fixed at Rs.11800 as on 01.10.2008. The pay was reduced from Rs.14832- 11800. This re-fixation was made without stating any reason for the same and referring to only Audit remarks for which the petitioners are not given any notice either before re-fixation or after the re-fixation. The petitioners submitted that both of them retired from service on 31.03.2010 and re-fixation comes on 15.09.2010 after 6 months of their retirement. Consequent to this, it is stated that the respondents fixed their pension at the reduced rates and recovered the excess pay on account of the re-

fixation for the period from 21.10.2005 onwards from the terminal benefits which were due to them.

3. Petitioners challenge this pointing out that the orders issued in Exts.P10, P11, P20 and P21 are illegal and liable to be set aside and they are entitled to get the terminal benefits on the basis of the re-fixation of his pay.

4. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that subsequently it was found that petitioners did not have the requisite qualification for appointment as operator which is pass in SSLC and NTC in MMV/Electrician and therefore, they were not entitled to the scale of pay admissible to the regular promotion post. It is stated that in the case of persons who do not have t