Recently, the Delhi High Court quashed the recovery of training allowance from a Border Security Force (BSF) officer, holding that administrative inconsistencies and conflicting orders issued by the authorities had led to the disputed payments. The matter involved the recovery of Rs. 2,65,827 on the ground that the petitioner had not performed instructional duties. The Court observed that the petitioner had been empanelled as an instructor and had proactively requested assignment of training duties, yet the authorities failed to ensure clarity in his role.
The petitioner, a BSF officer, was empanelled as an instructor at a Training Institute and was receiving a training allowance. However, after his promotion to the rank of Second-in-Command (2-I/C), he was assigned non-instructional duties, leading to the discontinuation of his allowance. Despite this, the authorities continued disbursing the allowance due to conflicting internal orders. Subsequently, an audit report found that the petitioner had not conducted training sessions from July 2017 to March 2018 and recommended recovery of the amount paid to him during that period. The respondents, acting on the audit’s recommendation, initiated recovery proceedings.
The petitioner argued that he was empanelled as an instructor, which entitled him to receive the training allowance as per the Circular dated 30.01.2018. He contended that he had repeatedly requested the authorities to assign him instructional duties, but no action was taken. The petitioner further submitted that the recovery was unfair since the payments were made due to administrative lapses, not any misrepresentation on his part.
The Court observed that the petitioner was empanelled as an instructor and was eligible for the training allowance under the Circular dated 30.01.2018, which allowed such payments for up to seven years unless the officer was reassigned to a non-instructional post. The Court noted that while the petitioner was promoted, there was no clear or formal reassignment order that placed him in a non-instructional role, and yet his training allowance continued to be paid.
The Court further observed that the authorities had themselves issued contradictory orders regarding the petitioner's entitlement to the training allowance. Initially, the allowance was discontinued upon his promotion, then later reinstated, and finally withdrawn again after the audit report. This inconsistency in administrative decisions led to confusion regarding the petitioner’s role and entitlement. Further, the Court emphasized that the petitioner had repeatedly requested clarification regarding his duties and had sought instructional assignments. Despite his proactive approach, the authorities failed to assign him such duties or provide a clear response. The Court held that the petitioner could not be penalized for an error that arose from the administrative lapses of the respondents.
The Court also remarked that the employer has a duty to ensure consistency and clarity in its decisions regarding financial entitlements. In this case, the lack of proper communication and coordination between the authorities resulted in the continued payment of the training allowance, which was later sought to be recovered. The Court found such recovery unjustified, as it was not due to any misrepresentation or wrongdoing by the petitioner.
The High Court set aside the recovery order, holding that the petitioner was not at fault and that the payments resulted from administrative inconsistencies. The court directed the respondents to refrain from recovering the disputed amount and ensure proper administrative clarity in similar matters in the future.
Picture Source :
