COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2835 of 2001 (Old No. 33943 of 1999) Gopal Dutt Joshi .............. Petitioner Versus Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam And others. ................... Respondents Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Dated: 03.04.2008 Hon'ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the revised Pension Payment Order dated 07.10.1997, contained in Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition and the recoveries made therein. 2. The facts of the writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was an employee of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and at the time of his voluntary retirement he was holding the post of Noter and Drafter in the office of the Executive Engineer, XV Division Jal Nigam, Gopeshwar, District Chamoli. The petitioner sought his voluntary retirement with effect from 31.01.1993 and issued a notice on 31.10.1992 to the respondents. It was specifically mentioned in the said notice that the petitioner be also granted 5 years benefit of additional service for purposes of pension and gratuity as provided under Rule 56 (e) of Financial Handbook, Volume II, Parts II to IV. The petitioner could not be retired as per the date of notice on account of the delay on the part of respondents, he issued a reminder on 02.02.1993. Finally, the petitioner was retired from service in the afternoon of 31.03.1993. On the basis of retirement order the petitioner was granted 5 years' benefit of additional service and a Pension Payment Order (in short 'P.P.O.') No. 129/AC-30 dated 10.02.1994 was issued in favour of the petitioner allowing him monthly pension at the rate of Rs. 570/- per month. Petitioner's total service was calculated to 25 years and 5 months. Under the rules the petitioner was entitled to gratuity amounting to Rs. 22618.50 according to P.P.O. dated 10.02.1994 but he has not been paid the gratuity amount till date. After four years the respondent No.3 issued a letter bearing No. 1466 dated 17.09.1996 that no specific mention of allowing benefit of 5 year's additional service was made in the office memorandum No. 410/A-3 dated 16.03.1993, hence if the appointing authority i.e. respondent No. 2 had the intention of allowing 5 years' benefit of additional service, the office memorandum dated 16.03.1993 be revised to that extent. The petitioner objected to refusal of 5 years' benefit and desired that if a formal order is necessary, the respondent Nos. 1& 2 may issue such a formal order. Without communicating any order to the petitioner by the authority concerned, the respondent No.3 issued a revised P.P.O., vide letter No. 1042 dated 07.10.1997 allowing the petitioner only monthly pension of Rs. 458/- per month with effect from 01.04.1993 taking into account the only qualifying service of the petitioner as 20 years and 5 months. 3. It is also alleged that in the revised P.P.O gratuity was assessed to Rs. 15,170/- only and a recovery of excess payment of encashment leave, recovery on account of excess payment of commutation of pension was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner and then after adjusting the gratuity of Rs. 15,170/- an amount of Rs. 7,624.70 was further ordered to be recovered from his pension. The petitioner alleged that the revised P.P.O. dated 07.10.1987 is against rules and regulations as well as against the provisions of natural justice. 4. The respondents contended that since the petitioner did not claim 5 years' additional benefit of service in the notice of voluntary retirement, he cannot be permitted to get the benefit of government order dated 24.08.1977 as contained in Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only question is to be decided in this case is whether the order dated 07.10.1997 revising the Pension Payment Order is valid and according to rules? There is specific provision under Rule 56 (e) of Fundamental Rule, Financial Handbook, Volume II, Parts II to IV which reads as under:- ''56. (e) A retiring pension shall be payable and other retirement benefits, if any, shall be available in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the relevant rules to every Government servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this rule. Provided that where a Government servant who voluntarily retires or is allowed voluntarily to retire under this rule the appointing authority may allow him, for the purposes of pension and gratuity, if any, the benefit of additional service of five years or of such period as he would have served if he had continued till the ordinary date of his superannuation, whichever be less; Explanation-(1) The decision of the appointing authority under clause (c) to require the Government servant to retire as specified therein shall be taken if it appears to the said authority to be in the public interest, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to require any recital, in the order, of such decision having been taken in the public interest. (2) In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require a Government servant to retire under clause (c) the appointing authority may take into consideration any material relating to the Government servant and nothing therein contained shall be construed to exclude from consideration- (a) any entries relating to any period before such Government servant was allowed to cross any efficiency bar or before he was promoted to any post in an officiating or substantive capacity or on an ad-hoc basis; or (b) any entry against which a representation is pending, provided that the representation is also taken into consideration alongwith the entry; or (c) any report of the Vigilance Establishment constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965. (2-A) Every such decision shall be deemed to have been taken in the public interest. (3) The 'expression' appointing authority means the authority which for the time being has the power to make substantive appointments to the post or service from which the Government servant is required or wants to retire; and the expression 'qualifying service' shall have the same meaning as in the relevant rules relating to retiring pension. (4) Every order of the appointing authority requiring a Government servant to retire forthwith under the first proviso to clause (d) of this rule shall have effect from the afternoon of the date of its issue, provided that if after the date of its issue, the Government servant concerned, bonafide and in ignorance of that order, performs the duties of his office his acts shall be deemed to be valid notwithstanding the fact of his having earlier retired." 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was allowed 5 years' benefit of additional service and a Pension Payment Order was issued allowing him monthly pension at the rate of Rs. 570/- per month. Till the date of issuance of revised PPO the petitioner was being paid pension according to said P.P.O. After about four years without any communication to the petitioner and without hearing to the petitioner, the respondent No.3 issued revised P.P.O. and according to this revised P.P.O. also ordered for recovery of alleged excess amount on account of leave encashment, commutation of pension etc.. Government order dated 24.08.1977 (Annexure- 10 to the writ petition) nowhere lays a guideline that the person seeking voluntary retirement should make a request for granting the benefit of 5 years' additional service, rather it provides that generally the benefit of 5 years' additional service will be admissible to all the Government servants but in exceptional circumstances it will not be granted to a Government servant where there is an entry in his character roll expressing the doubt on his integrity. 7. The respondents did not deny that the petitioner had a good service record. It is the principle of natural justice that if any benefits are granted once, it cannot be withdrawn without affording any opportunity of hearing to the concerned. The impugned order revising the PPO is not valid and against the rules. It cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The recovery ordered in pursuance of the revised PPO is also bad. 8. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 07.10.1997 is quashed. Pension and gratuity etc. shall be paid to the petitioner according to earlier P.P.O. dated 10.02.1994 granted by the respondents. (P.C. Verma, J.) 03.04.2008 P. Singh