The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents- authority to make payment of entire retrial benefits with consequential effects to the petitioner immediately after superannuation, held that the mistake was made way back in the year 2003 and it continued for about 15 years, thus in the opinion of this Court the order directing reduction in pay scale and recovery from the petitioner would be quite iniquitous, arbitrary and harsh.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, on being found eligible for the post of constable, having gone through the due process of selection, was appointed as a constable in the Railway Protection Force. Later, the petitioner was promoted from Constable to Head Constable. On the date of superannuation, the petitioner had been drawing his basic salary amounting to Rs.50,500/-. The pension of the petitioner was fixed on the basic pay of Rs.49,000/-, which he was getting 17 months before the date of his superannuation. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the reduction in the pay scale and recovery from a Government employee would be tantamount to a punitive action because the same has drastic civil as well as evil consequences since the impugned order is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and hence the same is not sustainable.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the basic pay of the petitioner was fixed at the rate of Rs.4300/-, but erroneously, he was again extended one extra increment on 01.12.2003 itself, fixing the pay scale at the rate of Rs.4400/- and in this way, he was granted double increments. On account of the above wrong pay fixation, the error was carried further in subsequent years, and his next basic pay scale was also raised erroneously.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that no recovery could be made from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery and when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years before the order of recovery is issued.
The Court observed that the petitioner was not placed on notice at the first instance or at any point of time during service that in case any excess amount is found to be paid, the same shall be recovered or the petitioner has tendered any undertaking in this regard. Admittedly, the mistake was made way back in the year 2003, and it continued for about 15 years thus, in the opinion of this Court, the order directing a reduction in pay scale and recovery from the petitioner would be quite iniquitous, arbitrary and harsh; thus, impermissible in law.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned order revising the pay scale of the petitioner and directing for recovery stands quashed.
Case Title: Ram Lakhan Singh v The Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Harish Kumar
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2850 of 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ramchandra Singh
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Maurya Vijay Chandra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
