Back
2015 Supreme(SC) 1055
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. CHELAMESWAR, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
B. Radhakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13407 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29959/2013)
With
K. Padmaraj - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13409 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.30038/2013)
Decided on : 17-11-2015
IMPORTANT POINT
Excess amount paid to employees on court orders should not be recovered.
Headnote:Service law – Pay – Appellants’ pay stepped up following High Court orders – Appellants not making any false/inaccurate claims – No fault of theirs in payment of excess amount – Directed not to be recovered. (Para 17, 18, 19)
(1994) 2 SCC 521 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Mr. B. Radhakrishnan and Mr. K. Padmaraj, appellants herein were enlisted in the Police Department of the Coimbatore City Police Unit in the year 1976 and 1977 respectively as Grade-II Police Constables.
One Eswaran and others were recruited between 1979 and 1982 in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion as Grade-II Police Constables, Category III. These persons were promoted to the post of Naik in the year 1985 and subsequently in the year 1987 to the post of Havaldar. At that time these persons were drawing higher pay than the appellants.
In the year 1993, Eswaran and others exercised their option seeking their transfer to the Armed Reserve, Coimbatore City Division which was allowed.
After their transfer, it was found that in the transferred post, they have to receive lower pay and therefore their pay was regularized in the scale of pay of Rs.825-15-900-20-1200 on the basis of the pay last drawn by them in the time scale of pay of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040. Subsequently, they got promotion as Grade I Police Constable and Head Constable in the Taluk Police at Coimbatore and consequently their pay was fixed under Fundamental Rule 22B.
On objection by the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu recovery of excess pay and allowances from them was ordered.
Eswaran and others filed applications before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai which were allowed.
The appellants herein, therefore, represented for fixing their pay at par with their juniors, namely, Eswaran and others. The representations were rejected.
The appellants preferred writ petitions which were allowed.
The respondents (State) filed appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court which were allowed.
Finding of the Court:
The excess amount paid should not be recovered.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
Judgment
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the common final judgment and order dated 02.07.2013 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. Nos.398 and 399 of 2013 whereby the High Court allowed the appeals filed by the respondents herein and set aside the common order dated 13.09.2010 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 9527 and 9528 of 2006 by which the appellants’ writ petitions were allowed.
3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals, which lie in a narrow compass, few relevant facts need mention infra.
4. Mr. B. Radhakrishnan and Mr. K. Padmaraj, appellants herein were enlisted in the Police Department of the Coimbatore City Police Unit in the year 1976 and 1977 respectively as Grade-II Police Constables. One Eswaran and others were recruited between 1979 and 1982 in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion as Grade-II Police Constables, Category III. These persons were promoted to the post of Naik in the year 1985 and subsequently in the year 1987 to the post of Havaldar. At that time these persons were drawing higher pay than the appellants.
5. In the year 1993, Eswaran and others exercised their option as provided in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules 1978 and sought their transfer to the Armed Reserve, Coimbatore City Division. It was allowed.
6. After their transfer, it was found that in the transferred post, they have to receive lower pay and accordingly instructions were issued by the office of the Director General vide memo dated 27.07.1982 for protection of their pay and hence their pay was regularized in the scale of pay of Rs.825-15-900-20-1200 on the basis of the pay last drawn by them in the time scale of pay of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040. Subsequently, they got promotion as Grade I Police Constable and Head Constable in the Taluk Police at Coimbatore and consequently their pay was fixed under Fundamental Rule 22B.
7. With regard to their pay protection, the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu raised objection, therefore, the Government ordered recovery of excess pay and allowances from them.
8. Aggrieved by the orders of recovery, Eswaran and others filed applications being O.A. No. 10317 of 1997 etc. etc. before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. By order dated 06.04.2004, the Tribunal allowed the applications and set aside the orders of recovery.
9. The appellants herein, therefore, gave a representation to the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore to fix their pay at par with their juniors, namely, Eswaran and others. By order dated 17.09.2005, their representation was rejected on the ground that the conditions in Fundamental Rule 22B Ruling (2) are not fulfilled.
10. Aggrieved by the refusal to step up their basic pay at par with Eswaran and others, the appellants herein preferred writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 9527 & 9528 of 2006 before the High Court. By order dated 13.09.2010, the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed stepping up of basic pay of the appellants herein at par with Eswaran and others. This order was implemented by the respondents by issuing the order dated 08.10.2011 and accordingly the basic pay of the appellants was stepped up.
11. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondents (State) filed appeals being Writ Appeal Nos. 398 and 399 of 2013 before the Division Bench of the High Court. By common impugned judgment, the Division Bench allowed the appeals, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appellants’ writ petitions. It was held that the case of the appellants could not be compared with that of the other set of employees – namely Eswaran and others to claim parity in pay in terms of Ruling 2 of Fundamental Rule 22B and Ruling 2 of Fundamental Rule 27 for the reason that in order to claim parity in pay, firstly, both junior and senior officers should belong to the same Cadre/Post in which they have been promoted/
