The Patna High Court allowed a Petition of a retired CISF Officer and clarified that no recovery can be made from a Class-III employee, who has not misappropriated or misrepresented the government fund and incorrect fixation is on the part of the Department.
The petitioner, who was a Class-III employee and posted as a Sub-Inspector of CISF, had filed a Petition seeking quashing of the order of reduction of pay and recovery whereby an amount of Rs.2,13,908 was deducted from his gratuity.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Purnendu Singh said,“It is made clear that the petitioner had retired on 31.07.2023 and order of recovery has been made on 30.11.2023. If such recovery is allowed to go then the same will put hardship to the petitioner to meet his day to day life expenses”, the Bench said.
Advocate Gajendra Pratap Singh represented the Petitioner while Additional Solicitor General of India (Dr.) Krishna Nandan Singh represented the Respondents.
The facts of the case suggested that in the year 2004 petitioner was appointed in the Central Industrial Security Force as ASI/EXE (RO) and in 2008, he got promoted to the rank of SI/EE (RO). His request to re-fix his pay as per the Central Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2008 with effect from April 2008 was rejected. In reply to the petitioner’s query, the Respondent informed that the seniority of the petitioner in feeder rank was not affected. The petitioner was later promoted notionally w.e.f May 2, 2008 and his basic pay was refixed equal to SI/Exe who was junior to the petitioner.
The petitioner superannuated and he requested to release his pensionary benefits. However, he was informed that the Regional Pay and Account Office, CISF, Ranchi had raised an objection in the re-fixation of salary in the pension paper of the petitioner. The petitioner sought cogent reasons for the revision of pay and recovery of Rs.2,13,908/- from gratuity. The Petitioner was informed that the decision taken by respondents to reduce the pay of the petitioner and effectuate a recovery of Rs.2,13,908 from gratuity was on account of incorrect pay fixation in 2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the High Court.The Petitioner contended that such action was in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015).
The sole issue which arose before the Bench was whether the petitioner’s case wass required to be considered in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Rafiq Masih (Supra), wherein, the Apex Court had laid down the principle of recoveries. It was observed in Rafiq Masih (Supra) that recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law in cases of employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C or Group D service).
The Respondent had raised the contention that the judgment in High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh, 2016 would be applicable where the sub-officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer had furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale and, therefore, he was bound by the undertaking as per the provision of Rule 6(2).
The Bench noticed that the Apex Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (Supra) would have made the observations in respect of a Civil Judge, who was not a Class-III and Class -IV employee. It was observed that the ratio in Jagdev Singh (Supra) being in the case of Class II employees wouldn’t be applicable in the present case.
The Bench noted that the petitioner is now retired and for the said reason, his pensionary benefit has been reduced after recovery of an amount of Rs.2,13,908, resulting from the effective date when such recovery had been made from the petitioner leading to fixation of his pension at a reduced rate after his retirement.
The Bench further held, “According to this Court, no recovery can be made from a Class-III employee, who has not misappropriated or misrepresented the government fund and incorrect fixation is on the part of the Department.”
Thus, quashing the Orders of Recovery, the Bench ordered, “The authorities under such circumstances are directed to rectify in view of the observation made hereinabove and fix the pension of the petitioner on the pay scale, which he was entitled on the date of his retirement and terminal benefits, as the petitioner is entitled for the same, which must be paid forthwith.”
Cause Title: Pramod Kumar Sinha v. Union Of India & Ors. (Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11407 of 2024)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Gajendra Pratap Singh
Respondents: Additional Solicitor General of India Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, CGC Punam Kumari Singh, Advocate Amarjeet
Click here to read/download Order
0 Comments