Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Junior Hindi Stenographer, served with the Madhya Pradesh Government from 23.04.1977 to 20.11.1985. She then joined the respondent employer on 22.11.1985 and was granted five advance increments in recognition of her past service. She superannuated on 30.06.2012. After her retirement, the employer discovered that the grant of five advance increments was a mistake and proceeded to recalculate her salary from 1985, reducing her last pay drawn and consequently her pension from Rs.9,755/- to Rs.9,395/-. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which partly allowed her claim by restraining recovery but refused to restore her last pay drawn. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging only the reduction in pension. The court noted that the petitioner had not suppressed any fact or made any misrepresentation; the increments were granted based on her past service. The benefits were enjoyed for 27 years without any objection. Relying on the principle of equity and the decision in Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department (2014), the court held that benefits extended for a considerable period cannot be abruptly withdrawn, especially when the employee was not at fault. The court also referred to Committee GFIL Vs. Libra Buildtech Private Limited (2015) and M. Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives (2020) to emphasise that equity should guide the interpretation. Accordingly, the court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order of the Tribunal to the extent it refused restoration of the last pay drawn, and directed the respondents to pay pension based on the last pay drawn of Rs.9,755/- without any deduction, along with consequential benefits and arrears within three months.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Reduction of Pension - Withdrawal of Advance Increments - Principle of Equity - The petitioner was granted five advance increments in 1991 based on her past service with the Madhya Pradesh Government. After her superannuation in 2012, the employer sought to withdraw those increments and reduce her pension. The court held that benefits extended for a considerable period (27 years) cannot be abruptly withdrawn, especially when there was no misrepresentation or fraud by the employee. The principle of equity dictates that a person cannot be penalised for no fault of his/her. (Paras 10-17) B) Service Law - Recovery - Mistaken Payment - Long-Standing Benefits - The court relied on Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and others (2014) to hold that if a mistake in pay fixation is discovered after retirement, neither recovery nor reduction in pension is permissible. The benefits drawn for over two decades cannot be withdrawn merely because the employer realised its mistake after 27 years. (Paras 14-15) C) Service Law - Equity - Justice, Equity and Good Conscience - The court cited Committee GFIL Vs. Libra Buildtech Private Limited (2015) and M. Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives (Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case) (2020) to emphasise that interpretation advancing the cause of justice and based on equity should be preferred. (Paras 18-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent employer could withdraw five advance increments granted to the petitioner 27 years ago and reduce her pension accordingly, in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal to the extent it refused restoration of the last pay drawn, and directed the respondents to pay pension based on the last pay drawn of Rs.9,755/- without any deduction, along with consequential benefits and arrears within three months.
Law Points
- Principle of equity
- No recovery of mistaken payments after long period
- Pension cannot be reduced after retirement based on mistake discovered after 27 years
- No penalisation without fault
