Union Of India & Anr vs Satya Pal
2014 Latest Caselaw 2704 Del

$~18
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 5380/2013

%                                  Date of decision: 26th May, 2014

      UNION OF INDIA & ANR                          ..... Petitioners
                    Through :            Mr.V.S.R.Krishna and
                                         Mr.Abhishek Yadav,
                                         Advocates.
                          versus
      SATYA PAL                                     ..... Respondent
                          Through :      Mr.Sharad K.Agrawal,
                                         Ms.Sangeeta Agrawal and
                                         Mr.Abhishek Sharma,
                                         Advocates with respondent
                                         in person.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

      GITA MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd

November, 2012 allowing the O.A.No.3062/2011. The facts

giving rise to the instant petition are within a narrow compass. The

respondent retired from the post of Assistant Controller of Stores at

the Wheel and Axle Plant, Yelahanka, Bangalore and his settled

dues were based by the respondents on the pay he was drawing at

the time of his superannuation.

2. The respondent's appointment as Assistant Controller, Stores

(liaison) Group B was by way of a promotion from the post of

Officer Superintendant to which he had been given promotion with

effect from 1st April, 1990. The petitioner was promoted as the

Assistant Controller Stores (Liaison) with effect from 9th April,

1991. The promotion was on actual basis.

3. It appears that a letter was written to the petitioner to review

his pay fixation and retirement benefits which were not correctly

fixed resulting in the filing of the application before the Tribunal

which was accepted by the order impugned before us.

4. It appears that Satya Pal, the respondent herein was working

as Chief Progress Inspector (an ex-cadre post) (hereafter referred to

as 'CPI') at New Delhi from 18.11.1986 to 08.04.1991.

Subsequently he was posted as Assistant Controller Stores

(ACOS/WAP for brevity) at New Delhi on ad-hoc basis with effect

from 9th April, 1991. This position was a promotion for the

respondent. At the time of promotion as ACOS (ad-hoc) the

respondent was drawing pay of Rs.2375/- as CPI (the ex-cadre

post) in the grade of Rs.2000-3200/-. While fixing the

respondent's pay in the post of ACOS grade, his pay was fixed at

Rs.2525/- taking into consideration the respondent's pay as Chief

Progress Inspector at that time which was at Rs.2375/-.

5. It appears that the petitioner was of the view that such pay

fixation was a mistake inasmuch as the respondent's pay in the ex-

cadre post of Chief Progress Inspector could not have been taken

into consideration. This discrepancy was pointed out by the Audit

Department. On realizing the mistake on 1st April, 1996, the

respondent's pay was refixed taking his cadre pay as Chief Clerk.

The refixation resulted in decrease in the respondent's emoluments

and with effect from 9th April, 1991 his pay was fixed at Rs.2180/-

instead of Rs.2525/- as ACOS.

6. It appears that the respondent was extremely opposed to the

unilateral decision taken by the petitioner more so as it was without

any prior notice to him. To add to the ignominy, the petitioner

calculated excess payment to the respondent at Rs.22,600/- which

amount also they recovered from his retiral benefits.

7. The petitioner, of course, did not favourably consider the

respondent's representation requesting it to restore his pensionery

benefits, contending that he was posted as ACOS, merely on adhoc

basis.

8. The respondent challenge to this action by way of an

application to the Tribunal was accepted by the impugned order

dated 22nd November, 2012. Detailed reasons have been recorded

in the impugned judgment to reject the submission of the

petitioner, we are satisfied that the petitioner has not made out any

case for interfering with the order passed by the Tribunal so far as

the refixation and recovery is concerned. It is an admitted position

that the same was done without any notice to the respondent and

that the petitioner has violated principles of natural justice. It is

unfortunate that not only did the petitioner effect the pay refixation

on the eve of the respondent's retirement but they also proceeded

to unilaterally withhold amount which the respondent would have

received on retirement, yet another mile stone of his life. The

retrospective refixation of the salary in these circumstances, that

too without notice to the person affected, is legally impermissible.

The Tribunal has held so in the impugned order.

9. The material fact which has weighed with the Tribunal in

granting the claimed relief to the respondent is the fact that the

petitioner was bound to inform Sh.Satya Pal, the respondent herein,

of the consequences of his accepting the promotion to the post of

ACOS the respondent deserved to know that his pay packet was

bound to decrease if he accepted the promotion. The respondent's

case before the Tribunal was that if he had prior information of the

financial loss which he would incur, in case he accepted the

promotion, he would have opted to continue as Chief Progress

Inspector (the ex-cadre post) on which he was working.

The Tribunal has thus rightly concluded that the respondent

cannot be made to suffer a financial loss for the fault of the

petitioner.

10. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the

findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal. This writ petition

is hereby dismissed.

11. We make it clear that the order of the Tribunal as well as the

order passed by us shall not be treated as a precedent in any other

case. The petitioner shall pass appropriate orders on the

consequential orders in favour of the respondent within a period of

four weeks from today. The order shall be communicated to the

respondent immediately on its passing. The petitioner shall also

communicate the computation and basis on which they make the

payment. In case the respondent is aggrieved by the same, it shall

be open to him to approach the petitioner with regard thereto and to

seek any legal redressal.

The petitioner shall ensure that the payments are made to the

respondent within two weeks of the passing of the order.

12. The writ petition is dismissed in the above terms.

Dasti.

GITA MITTAL, J

DEEPA SHARMA, J MAY 26, 2014 rb