1. Promotional pay scales granted based on ad hoc service — Subsequent withdrawal of benefits — Recovery of excess payments from superannuated employees. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 11 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 28
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal, JJ.
Dr. Balbir Singh Bhandari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5933 OF 2023 With Civil Appeal No. 5935 of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 5937 of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 5938 of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 5934 of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 5936 of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 5941 of 2023 and Civil Appeal Nos. 5939-5940 of 2023
Decided On : 10-01-2024
Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Shah, Adv. Mr. Manan Verma, AOR Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR Mr. Krishnam Mishra, Adv. Mr. Param Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanat Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Dutt Shukla, Adv. Mr. Adesh Kumar Gill, Adv. Mr. Prateek Rai, Adv. Mr. Chanchal, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ashish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Shaifali Singh, Adv. Mr. Akash, Adv. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Shah, Adv. Mr. Manan Verma, AOR
Advocate appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Shah, Adv. Mr. Manan Verma, AOR Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR Mr. Krishnam Mishra, Adv. Mr. Param Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanat Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Dutt Shukla, Adv. Mr. Adesh Kumar Gill, Adv. Mr. Prateek Rai, Adv. Mr. Chanchal, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ashish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Shaifali Singh, Adv. Mr. Akash, Adv. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Shah, Adv. Mr. Manan Verma, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Recovery – Withdrawal of personal/promotional pay scale without due entitlement is justified.
Headnote:
Service Law – Recovery – Withdrawal of personal/promotional pay scale – As per Government Order dated 5th February 1998, service rendered by Medical Officers on an ad hoc basis shall be taken into account for computing 8 years of continuous satisfactory service – However, they should be given benefit of personal pay only after regularisation of their service – Personal time-bound pay scale was granted to appellants, subject to condition that if Government takes any decision to the contrary, amount will be recovered from salary of concerned medical officers – No error in view taken by State Government as there was no valid reason to grant a higher pay scale only to Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Officers after continuous satisfactory service of 8 years, whereas, for all other Government servants, satisfactory continuous service of 10 years was required – No material was brought on record to show how and why favourable treatment was given to appellants – High Court was right in not setting aside order of recovery – View taken by High Court upheld. (Paras 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Benefit of a personal/promotional pay scale was granted to the appellants by State of Uttarakhand. Said benefit was withdrawn under a subsequent decision of State of Uttarakhand. The narrow question is whether benefits can be recovered from the appellants who have superannuated.
Findings of Court:
Appellants will be entitled to ACP benefits made available under the orders dated 8th March 2011 and 1st July 2013. Therefore, if any consequential benefits accrue based on the said two orders with time, appellants will be entitled to the same. Needless to add, the recovery shall be made, as specified under the order dated 27th October 2014.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Binding nature of prior government orders — Lack of opportunity for hearing — Inequity of recovery from superannuated employees. (Para 7 )
3. Preferential pay scales granted to a specific cadre without valid reason, contrary to general finance rules, were rightly withdrawn. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 , 14 )
4. Recovery of payments made under an invalid order is permissible where no valid reason exists for preferential treatment and employees are not from weaker sections. (Para 10 , 14 , 15 )
5. Appeals dismissed — Recovery of excess payments upheld — Entitlement to valid ACP benefits preserved. (Para 16 )
6. Can the government recover monetary benefits granted under an order that is later found to be contrary to general finance rules?
Yes. If an order creates an unjustified special class of employees with preferential treatment, such as shorter service requirements for pay scales contrary to general finance rules, the government may rightly withdraw the order and recover the payments. (Para 10 , 13 )
7. When is the recovery of excess payments from government employees considered inequitable?
Recovery may be considered inequitable if the employees belong to a weaker section of society. However, if the employees do not belong to such a section, recovery of benefits granted under an invalid or unjustified order is permissible. (Para 14 , 15 )
8. What is the legal status of a government decision taken by the Chief Minister?
A decision taken by the Chief Minister remains valid and operational unless the Cabinet of the Government expressly withdraws the decision. (Para 5 , 8 )
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The benefit of a personal/promotional pay scale was granted to the appellants by the State of Uttarakhand. The said benefit was withdrawn under a subsequent decision of the State of Uttarakhand. The narrow question is whether the benefits can be recovered from the appellants who have superannuated.
2. Few factual aspects need consideration. The undivided Government of Uttar Pradesh issued an order dated 16th June 1988 by which the appellants were appointed on an ad hoc basis in the State Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Service Cadre. The appointments were expressly made for a period of one year or till the State Public Service Commission provides the duly selected candidates. A decision dated 5th February 1998 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh provided that any medical officer working on an ad hoc basis shall be considered for regularisation upon completing continuous and satisfactory service of 8 years. However, it was clarified that the benefit of personal payment should be approved only after their regularisation in service. It was specifically made clear that if any medical officer has completed 8 years of continuous service but has not been regularised, the benefit of the personal pay band will be admissible only after he is regularised. On 2nd December 2000, a decision was made by the government that officers/employees who completed continuous and satisfactory service of 8 years in the same post on or after 1st January 1996 shall be provided a salary increment in the revised pay band. It was also decided that the officers who have been granted the aforesaid benefit and who have completed continuous and satisfactory service of 6 years from the date of getting the benefit of selection grade to a total of 14 years of continuous and satisfactory service shall be approved on the next pay-band or promotional post on a personal basis. It was clarified that the benefit be available to those who have been regularised on the concerned post.
3. The first respondent, by an office memorandum dated 27th January 2006, regularised the appellants' employment. The appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court. The grievance was regarding the non-grant of the promotional pay scale. The writ petitions were disposed of by the order dated 3rd January 2011, directing the State Government to consider their claim for the grant of a promotional pay scale. On 8th March 2011, the first respondent – the State Government, granted approval for applying a new ACP (Assured Career Progression Scheme) in the revised pay structure from 1st January 2006 for the State Government employees. On 4th August 2011, the Chief Secretary of the State Government issued a communication to the Director General of Ayurvedic and Unani Services, which reads thus:
“In the light of G.O. No.2178/71-2-2010-519/2005 Dt. 18th June, 2010 of Govt. of U.P, Medical Education Section-2, I have been directed to say that with regard to G.O. No. 7468/71-2- 5/92 Dt. 5th February, 1998, the benefit of personal/promotional pay-scale (i.e. 08/14 years) shall be admissible to Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Officers and Medical Officers (Community Health) only after their regularization. It means that whenever concerned medical officer shall be regularized at that time while considering his entire satisfactory service on ad hoc basis to be regular, individual/promotional pay-scale shall be admissible upon completion of 08/14 years of service.”
(emphasis added)
4. On 27th September 2011, in terms of the directions issued by the Chief Secretary, the Director of the Ayurvedic and Unani Services of the first respondent granted a time-bound pay band to the appellants in terms of the order dated 4th August 2011. As some of the appellants were not given the benefit of the order dated 4th August 2011, they filed a writ petition before the High Court. By the order dated 7th May 2013, the High Court directed the State Government to consider granting the next high
