BEFORE THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR t,_^rS;^li^2AL O.A. N0. /2001 GIRDHARI LAL AGRAWAL Aged about 63 years Retired Lower Division Clerk Higher Education Department Govt. College, Bhopalpatnam Distt. Dantewada Resident of Near Bamlai Mandir Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) Applicants a 1. 2. ^ Versus Govt. of M.P. through the Secretary to the Govt. of M.P., Higher Education Department Vallabh Bhavan Bhopal (M.P.) Govt. of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Higher Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Accountant General of M.P. Gwalior (M.P.) Joint Director, Treasury, Account and Pension Raipur (C.G.) . . Non-applicants ORIGINAL APPLICATION XJNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1985 g IL APPLICANT RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3498/2005 Girdhari Lal Agrawal Versus Govt. of Madhya Pradesh and others Sinale Bench: Hon'bte Shri Manindra ^ohan Shrivastava, J» Present:- Shri Manish Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.2 & 4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 17" day of March, 2010) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finaSly. (2) Grievance of the petitioner as set out in the petition is that the petitioner retired on 30-09-1996 from the post of Lower Division Clerk. The petitioner came to know from his pension papers that an amount of Rs.23,059/» has been deducted from hjs gratuity as evidenced from Annexure A-2. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner assaiis the aforesaid action of the respondents in making deduction from the amount of the gratuiSy firstly on the submission that the action of recovery from gratuity involved civii consequences, and therefore, it was not open for the respondents to take such a action without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The second submission of learned counsei for the petitioner is that the recovery has been ordered on an incorrect premise that the petitioner was absorbed vide order dated 26-10-1983 on the condition of passing Hindi Typing examination. He submits that no such condition was incorporated in the order of absorption dated 26-10-1983 (Annexure R-1) yet it was mentioned in order dated 18-09-1991 that the '^ ^^ condjtion of passing Hindi Typing examination is deleted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as there was no such condition imposed, there was no occasion for withdrawing such a condition. It has been contended that in the absence of there being any condition, increments could not be denied to the petitioner, and therefore, grant of increment w.e.f.09-06-1981 couid not be withdrawn. 11 is also contended that the subsequent objection that thO.e was entitled to increments only from 01-08-1987 i.e. after issuance of circular dated 01-08-1986 is completely erroneous. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that he was granted increments by the respondents in view of the drcular issued by the Govt. on 01-08-1986. Later on, a different Interpretation was gjven to the policy and holding that the petitioner was entitled to payment of increment only w.e.f. 01-08-1987, recovery was ordered. According to him, this ciearly indicates that the grant of increment was not outcome of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. Further, it appears that the authorities iteelf were InitiaJly satisfied with regard to entitiement of the petitioner and the increments were granted. In such a situation, even if subsequent decision is taken against the petitioner, no recovery could be ordered. (4) Per contra, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division C!erk on 11-07-19^. Thereafter, the petitioner was absorbed in government servjce vide order dated 26-10-1983 (Annexure R-1) with the condition of passing Hindi typing examination. Subsequent!y, in ^ew of the Govt. order dated 01-08-1986 and 18-09-1991, as the petitioner had crossed the age of 35 years, he was exempted from passing Hindj Typing Examination. Later on, it was found that the benefit of increment wou!d accrue on!y from the on which relaxation was granted by the •s^ Government. He submits that when this aspect came to the notice of the respondents, recovery was made. (5) A perusa! of order of absorption dated 26-10-1 983 (Annexure R-1) shows that no condition of passing Hindi Typing examination was imposed on the petitioner. His absorption was unconditional. As such, there was no occasion to withdraw the aileged condition on the basis of drcuSar dated 01-08-1986. Respondents have not placed any other material on record to establish that the petitioner's absorption was on the condition of passing Hindi Typing examination. A perusal of relevant extracts of service book (Annexure R-3) shows that vide order dated 28"04 1987, annual increment was sanctioned from the initia! date of appointment and recording that increments were paid till 08-06- 1981, annuai incremente from 09-06-1981 onwards were also sanctioned. It appears that while preparing petitioner's case for grant of pension, an objection to this effect was raised and recovery was proposed, which is clear from letter issued from the office of the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Raipur Division, Raipur to Principal, Govt. College, Dantewada (Annexure R-4). !t is therefore clear that the recovery was ordered on erroneous assumption that the petitioner was under an obligation to pass Hindi Typing examination by virtue of the condition of absorption as contained in his absorption order dated 26-10-1983. (6) Assuming for argument's sake that petitioner was wrongly paid increment from 1981, it is not the case of the respondents that increments were granted to the petitioner on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. From the return of the respondents, it is clear that injtially, the petitioner was granted increment by interpreting various government circulars in one particular manner but later on taking different view, it was held that the petitioner was entitled to increment only from the date of issuance of circuiar dated 01-08-1986, bywhich relaxation was granted. (7) Otherwise also, the impugned action of recovery from the petitioner was taken without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (8) tn this view of the matter, whatever was paid to the petitioner could not be recovered. j am unable to uphold the impugned action of recovery of substantial amount to the tune of Rs.23,059/- that too from the gratuity of the petitioner after aimost three years of his retirement. Consequently, the action of the respondents in making deduction of an amount of Rs.23,059/- from the gratuity ofthe petitioner is declared iltegal. The said amount shall be refunded along with interest @ 10% to the petitioner. No orders as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude Tumans