The petitioner, a Junior Hindi Stenographer, was employed with the Madhya Pradesh Government from 1977 to 1985 and later joined the respondent employer in 1985. She was granted five advance increments for her past service. These increments were continued until her superannuation in 2012. Upon retirement, her pay was recalculated, and the increments were withdrawn, reducing her pension and other benefits. The petitioner challenged this decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which partially allowed her claim, preventing recovery but not restoring her original pension. The High Court set aside the withdrawal of increments, restored her pension, and directed recalculation of all consequential benefits with interest.

1. Petitioner's Employment and Increments:

The petitioner worked as a Junior Hindi Stenographer for the Madhya Pradesh Government from 1977 to 1985. Upon joining the respondent employer in 1985, she was granted five advance increments for her past service.

2. Initial Salary Calculation:

Her initial salary was calculated with the five advance increments. She retired on 30.06.2012.

3. Recalculation at Superannuation:

At superannuation, it was found that the five advance increments granted since 1985 were a mistake, leading to recalculation and deduction.

4. Challenge Before Tribunal:

The petitioner challenged the deduction and reduction in pension before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which partially allowed her claim, preventing recovery but not restoring her original pension.

5. Counsel's Contention:

Petitioner's counsel argued that the increments were granted due to her past service and were not a result of any misrepresentation or fraud.

6. Pension Calculation:

Her pension was initially calculated at Rs.9,755/-. After withdrawal of increments, it was reduced to Rs.9,395/- affecting other benefits like gratuity and leave encashment.

7. Withholding of Pension:

Her pension was withheld for recovery of benefits arising from the five increments.

8. Tribunal's Decision:

The Tribunal partly allowed her claim, preventing recovery but not restoring her original pension.

9. Restricted Challenge:

The petitioner restricted her challenge to the restoration of pension based on the last salary drawn without reducing the five increments.

10. Petitioner's Past Service:

The petitioner had not suppressed any material fact about her past service, and the increments were granted recognizing her past experience.

11. Continuous Benefit:

The increments were continuously drawn for 27 years until her superannuation.

12. Impact of Withdrawal:

Withdrawal of increments after 27 years adversely affected her pension and other benefits.

13. Principle of Equity:

The principle of equity prevents penalizing the petitioner for no fault of hers.

14. Supreme Court Judgments:

Relevant judgments from the Supreme Court support the principle of not withdrawing benefits granted for a long period.

15. Conclusion:

The High Court quashed the decision to withdraw the increments and restored her pension to Rs.9,755/-, directing recalculation and release of all consequential benefits.

16. Additional Directions:

All delayed payments, including gratuity, shall carry interest at 7% per annum, and benefits must be released by 30.09.2024.

17. Final Order:

The writ petition is allowed, and the rule is made accordingly with no order as to costs.