Uttarakhand High Court
Rajendra Singh And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 10 November, 2021
IN HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINIT0AL
Writ Petition No.1465 of 2020 (S/S)
Rajendra Singh and Others .....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Advocate: Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. P.C. Bisht, Addl. C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
The petitioners to the present writ petition have come up with the
case that after working with the respondents as a regular Collection Amin, they
have attained their respective age of superannuation on 31.12.2018, 30.06.2019
and 31.12.2019 respectively. They have contended; that since having worked as
Collection Amin, where there was no further promotional avenues available to
the petitioners, their rights were protected by the Government Order of
17.10.2008 and accordingly by the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated
18.05.2020 in fact, the grade pay, which was made payable to the petitioners,
was settled and approved as to be fixed on Rs.5400/- grade pay, with the pay
scale of Rs.15600-24800, and accordingly their retiral benefits payable to them
were determined based on the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate No.183
dated 18.05.2020. There is nothing on record to show, that at any stage, the
decision taken by the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 18.05.2020, which was
based upon the decision of the screening committee and its report submitted
thereafter on 03.10.2019, was ever reviewed, recalled rescinded or modified at
any stage, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and as
such the petitioners would be entitled to be paid with the pensionary benefits
based on the last salary drawn as certified by the Sub Divisional Magistrate's
vide his decision dated on 18.05.2020 referred above.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that by virtue of the impugned
order, which is under challenge in the present writ petition i.e. dated 30.07.2020,
in fact, the Chief Treasury Officer, had passed an order by virtue of which the
grade pay on which the pensionary benefits of the petitioners were earlier
settled, has been reduced to Rs.4800/- in place of Rs.5400/-. Accordingly the
petitioners have prayed, that a writ of mandamus may be issued to respondent
nos.5, 6 & 7 to fix the pension of the petitioners at the grade pay of Rs.5400/- as
settled by the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 18.05.2020, being the
basis of the last salary drawn, by the petitioners.
3. On the contrary, it has been argued by the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel, that the settlement of the pensionary benefits of the
petitioners at the reduced scale of Rs.4800/- runs in consonance to the
Government Order of 17.10.2008 and as such no fault could be pointed out in
the settlement of the revised grade pay, which has been taken as to be the
foundation for the resettlement of the retiral benefits and the consequential
recovery, in pursuance to it, if any.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after
having given a thoughtful consideration to the conditions provided in the
Government Order of 17.10.2008 and particularly the reference, which the
learned Standing Counsel has made to the appendix, annexed with the
Government Order fixing the grade pay, in fact the implications of the said
Government Order, if at all could have been made applicable, it could not have
overridden the effect of the decision of Sub Divisional Magistrate dated
18.05.2020 fixing grade pay of the petitioners of Rs.5400/- and even if, at all if
there was any implications of the Government Order of 17.10.2008, resulting
into the consequential determining the grade pay payable at the rate of Rs.4800/-
, in that eventuality the Chief Treasury Officer, who has passed the impugned
order would not be the competent authority, to take a decision with regards to
the admissibility of the pay scale of the petitioners payable to them on the date
of their respective age of superannuation. Hence, the order passed by the Chief
Treasury Officer, is apparently without jurisdiction and hence cannot be
sustained.
5. Apart from it if the impugned order of 30.07.2020 itself is taken
into consideration, in fact it does not make any reference to the settled grade pay
made payable to the petitioners by the orders of Sub Divisional Magistrate, nor
does it show or record its finding that the Chief Treasury Officer, has ever
applied its mind, about the implications of the Government Order of 17.10.2008;
as well as impact of the grade pay settled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on
18.05.2020 referred above, nor does it reflect, that the petitioners were provided
any opportunity of hearing; while reducing the pensionary benefits, making it to
be determinable at the grade pay of Rs.4800/- in place of Rs.5400/- as it was
settled in the case of the petitioners by the order of the Sub Divisional
Magistrate.
6. In that eventuality and in a peculiar circumstances of the present
case, the order of 30.07.2020 cannot be sustained and hence it is hereby
quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and a writ of mandamus is
issued to respondent nos.5, 6, 7 & 8 to continue to pay to the petitioners, the
pensionary benefits on the basis of the grade pay of Rs.5400/-as it has been
settled by the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and would continue to pay
the same to the petitioners.
7. However, it is made clear, that in an event, if the Government
Order of 17.10.2008 reducing the grade pay payable to the petitioners, was
having any bearing based on the appendix annexed to it, it would be rather the
respondent no.3, the appointing authority of the petitioners, who has to take a
decision, as to up to what extent the Government Order of 17.10.2008 would
have a bearing on the settlement of the grade pay payable to the petitioners and
if at all it has a bearing, the District Magistrate before passing any order on the
same would obviously hear the petitioners and then pass an appropriate order on
the same. However, it is once again clarified that during the intervening period
when the District Magistrate, takes a decision in pursuance to today's judgment,
he would continue to remit the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioners on
the grade pay of Rs.5400/-which was initially paid to them on the date of their
attainment of the age of superannuation and would also remit the arrears for the
said period for which they have been paid the retiral benefits at the reduced
grade pay. The District Magistrate is hereby directed that he will take a decision
about the implications of the Government Order of 17.10.2008 within a period
of two months from today.
8. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
10.11.2021
Arti
