Bombay High Court: Order passed by the respondent, reducing the basic pay of the petitioner retrospectively after her superannuation, was set aside by a Division Bench comprising of B.R. Gavai and Bharati. H. Dangre, JJ.
The petitioner challenged the recovery of a certain sum on account of reduction in pay scale, ordered by the respondent. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Trained Teacher in 1970. She attained superannuation in 2010. The impugned order was passed in 2011 by the respondent on the ground that the basic pay was reduced as per the qualifications of the petitioner.
The High Court perused the record and found that the impugned order was passed after 18 months of petitioner’s retirement. The Court, referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sayed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475, held that such a recovery at the far end of the career of an employee or after his superannuation was not permissible in law. Similarly, the impugned order of the respondent reducing basic pay of the petitioner was also found unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the petition was allowed. [Grace George Pampoorickal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1037, dated 20-4-2018]