SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 649

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANDEEP MEHTA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Jagdish Prasad Singh – Appellant
VERSUS
State of Bihar and Others – Respondents
Decided On : 08-08-2024
Civil Appeal No(s). 1635 of 2013
Decided On : 08-08-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. George Thomas, AOR Mr. Manan Daga, Adv. Mr. Ansh Mittal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vikramjit Bannerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kr Singh, Adv. Mrs. Sushma Verma, Adv. Ms. Priya Mishra, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Recovery – Any decision taken by State Government to reduce an employee’s pay scale and recover excess amount cannot be applied retrospectively and that too after a long time gap.
(2) Any step of reduction in pay scale and recovery from a Government employee would tantamount to a punitive action because same has drastic civil as well as evil consequences.


Headnote:

Service Law – Recovery – Reduction of pension – Any decision taken by State Government to reduce an employee’s pay scale and recover excess amount cannot be applied retrospectively and that too after a long time gap – Fact regarding appellant having been accorded time bound promotion from post of Marketing Officer in Junior Selection Grade to Senior Selection Grade, Marketing Officer-cum-Assistant District Supply Officer(ADSO) as per his entitlement on 10th March 1991 is not in dispute – It is not the case of respondents that promotion suffered from any irregularity or was given against rules and regulations – Appellant could not have been put to a disadvantage and his pay scale could not have been reduced prospectively by virtue of impugned Resolution – Any step of reduction in pay scale and recovery from a Government employee would tantamount to a punitive action because same has drastic civil as well as evil consequences – No such action could have been taken against appellant, more particularly, because he had superannuated eight years ago before recovery notice was issued – Impugned action directing reduction of pay scale and recovery of excess amount is grossly arbitrary and illegal and also suffers from vice of non-adherence to principles of natural justice and same cannot be sustained – Impugned orders quashed – Appellant shall continue to receive pension in accordance with pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 – In case, any reduction in pension and consequential recovery was effected on account of impugned orders, appellant shall be entitled to restoration/reimbursement thereof with interest as applicable. (Paras 18, 21, 26, 27 and 28)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal by special leave is directed against final Judgment dated 27th August, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1254 of 2011, whereby appeal preferred by appellant was dismissed and judgment dated 23rd February, 2010 passed by Single Judge of High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC) No. 18542 of 2009 and so also judgment dated 23rd March, 2011 passed by Single Judge in Civil Review No. 82 of 2010 were upheld.

Findings of Court:

Impugned order dated 27th August, 2012 passed by Division Bench of High Court does not stand to scrutiny and is hereby quashed. Therefore, appellant shall continue to receive pension in accordance with the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the final judgment dated 27th August, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1254 of 2011, whereby the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed and the judgment dated 23rd February, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case(CWJC) No. 18542 of 2009 and so also the judgment dated 23rd March, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Review No. 82 of 2010 were upheld.

3. Facts in a nutshell are that the appellant herein was appointed to the post of Supply Inspector in the Government of Bihar in the year 1966. After serving for 15 years, he received his first time bound promotion as Marketing Officer and was put in Junior Selection Grade w.e.f. 1st April, 1981. Upon completing 25 years in service, the appellant was further promoted to the post of Senior Selection Grade, Marketing Officer-cum-Assistant District Supply Officer(in short ‘ADSO’) w.e.f. 10th, March 1991 in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3800.

4. The Government of Bihar issued a Resolution dated 8th February, 1999 revising the pay scale of Marketing Officer from Rs.1640-2900 to Rs.5500-9000 and that of ADSO, from Rs.2000- 3800 to Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 1st January, 1996. Since the appellant had been promoted as ADSO w.e.f. 10th March, 1991, his pay scale was revised to Rs.6500-10500 in accordance with the Resolution dated 8th February, 1999 which is quoted below for ready reference: -

    "11. The State Government have decided to abolish the existing facilities of Time Bound Promotions and Selection Grades, discussed in paras 10 and 12 of F.D. Resolution No.6021 dated 18th December, 1989 and they shall cease to be applicable with effect from 1st January, 1996 and thereafter in the existing pay scales. If any such promotion, however, is due under the Rules before 1st January, 1996, it shall be given and the payment of arrears in the existing scale shall be made only upto 31st December, 1995 after which the promotion would be deemed to have been automatically terminated. While fixing pay in the revised scales, such promotions given after 31st December, 1995 will not be taken into consideration. If such promotions have been given after 31st December, 1995 then the question of adjustment of such additional emoluments obtained in the process, will be decided after the Fitment Committee submits its recommendations on promotion Policy. Promotion to any vacancy of a post identified as need based post would be admissible. The procedure for identification of such need based posts has been set out in paragraph 12."

(emphasis supplied)

5. The appellant superannuated from the post of ADSO on 31st January, 2001. At the time of retirement, the last pay drawn by the appellant was Rs.10500 in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 with admissible emoluments. As per the Bihar Pension Rules of 1950, his pension was calculated at 50% of the average emoluments and was quantified at Rs.5247 per month. Accordingly, the pension as above was disbursed to the appellant from the date of his retirement.

6. It seems that the Accountant General, State of Bihar, raised an objection dated 28th January, 2003, regarding the promotion accorded to the appellant on 10th March, 1991 with a further remark that the promotion given to the appellant on 10th March, 1991 would become ineffective after 1st January, 1996 in view of the Government Resolution dated 8th February, 1999 and, thus, the pay scale of the appellant would have to be revised and reduced to match that of the lower post, i.e., the Marketing Officer.

7. After more than eight years from his retirement, the appellant received a letter dated 15th April, 2009 from the Government of Bihar conveying that an error had been committed in his pay fixation and, therefore, a sum of Rs.63,765/- had to be recovered from him as the same had been paid in excess beyond his e


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top