@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D. Hariparanthaman, J.@mdashThe Petitioner was retired as Block Development Officer and he retired from service on 30.06.1988 on reaching the age of superannuation. He was paid pension.
2. After 13 years, all of a sudden, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order dated 23.08.2001, on the ground that there was some wrong fixation made in the fixation of pay and therefore, the pension has to be revised from 01.07.1998 onwards. The impugned order states that the excess amount of Rs. 42,604/- was paid during 13 years. The impugned order was passed for recovery of Rs. 42,604/-. The Petitioner has filed O.A. No. 646 of 2002 (W.P. No. 8312 of 2007) to quash the aforesaid order.
3. Heard Mr. R. Sasidharan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. C.K. Vishnupriya, Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents.
4. The first Respondent has filed reply stating that the District Collector has nothing to do with this matter and therefore, he was not a necessary party.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order is cryptic without any reasons. It is not stated as to how the mistake, if any crept in. In any event, the learned Counsel submits that the fixation of pay before his retirement in the year 1988 was done by the department. No higher fixation was made at his instance. The fixation of pay by way of revision was not due to any misrepresentation from the Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if there is any mistake by way of revision of pay, no recovery could be made from the pension.
6. The learned Counsel further submits that the 2nd respondent was not correct in passing the impugned order after a long period. There is no reason for passing the impugned order after 13 years. Since the Petitioner retired in 1988 and he was receiving the pension, the 2nd respondent could not modify the payment of pension after 13 years on the ground that there was some mistake took place 13 years back in fixation of pay. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel relied
Even if it is accepted for the argument sake that salary of the petitioner is fixed in a wrong scale of pay, it is the fault committed by the Department and their Officers, for which the petitioner should not be penalised after a lapse of number of years that too after retirement of the petitioner.
7. In this case, admittedly, after 13 years the respondent sought to revise the pay on the ground that there was wrong fixation of pay. Further, the petitioner is a retired person, who retired from service long back. Hence, the said case squarely covers the issue involved in this case.
8. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the impugned order is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to cost.
