Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1460
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI AND CHALLA GUNARANJAN, JJ.
Union of India and others - Appellant
Versus
Khadar Khan and others - Respondent
WP No.15977 of 2017
Decided on : 17-12-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mallampalli Srinivas (Central Government Counsel)
For the Respondent: P. Venkata Rama Sarma; M.V. Krishna Mohan
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees, or employees due to retire within one year, is impermissible under established legal principles.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Challenge to order by the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding pay fixation and recovery of excess payment from retired employee - Tribunal directed refund of excess amount considering Supreme Court rulings limiting recovery from retirees. (Paras 4, 6, 18, 19)
(B) Pay Protection - 'Deputationists returning to parent department cannot claim pay protection from higher scales held during deputation unless formally promoted in the parent department.' (Paras 10, 12, 21)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was initially a temporary typist who received ad hoc promotions but faced pay scale revision and recovery upon repatriation to the parent division, just months before retirement. (Paras 3, 8)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that recovery of excess payments made during the employee's service was not permissible just prior to retirement and ordered that amounts recovered must be refunded. (Paras 6, 18)
Issues: The primary issues focused on the validity of pay fixation post-repatriation and the legal standing of recovery actions against retired employees. (Paras 10, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Tribunal's direction against recovery based on precedents that prohibit such actions when an employee is nearing retirement, reaffirming the inadequacy of merit in reassessing ad hoc promotions once regularized. (Paras 12, 18)
Result: Writ petition dismissed; Tribunal's order upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ filed challenging tribunal orders regarding pay fixation. (Para 2) |
| 2. direction for pay re-fixation and recovery refund. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. conditions for pay fixation of deputationists. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court confirmed no recovery from employees close to retirement. (Para 14) |
| 5. legal limits on recovery from employees. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. conclusion and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
1. Heard, Sri Mallampalli Srinivas, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Venkata Rama Sarma, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. This writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) in OA No.643 of 2015, by which the OA filed by the applicant/respondent No.1 herein was disposed of with directions.
3. The applicant/respondent No.1 was initially appointed as a temporary typist in BZA Vijayawada Division in the pay scale of Rs.260-400 and was directed to report under the Railway Electrification Projects Organization. While working in the said organisation, he was promoted as Senior Typist and Head Typist purely on ad hoc basis on 17.06.2000 and 05.07.2007, respectively which was not based on seniority and other relevant criteria for promotion. He was repatriated to his parent division on 09.09.2008. His pay on repatriation continued as same as was on deputation. The respondents in OA (petitioners herein), based on Circular No.54/2014 dated 19.05.2014, that an ad hoc promotion granted in ex-cadre post did not entitle a Railway Servant to the protection of pay on repatriation in the parent division, revised his basic pay downwards from Rs.21,640/- to Rs.19,550/- withdrawing the pay earlier fixed. They also resorted to the recovery of Rs.3,07,063/- as an excess payment on this count, by an order dated 03.02.2015. Two installments of Rs.12,000/- p.m., were recovered for April and May, 2015 and leftover amount was recovered from the settlement dues as the applicant retired from service on superannuation w.e.f. 31.05.2015.
4. The applicant filed the OA No.643 of 2015, which was disposed of by an order dated 17.11.2016 with the following directions :
"8. Having considered the submissions of both sides and the material on record and the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.1523/2015 and having regard to the fact that the applicant in the said OA and the applicant herein are similarly situated, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant on the basis of the decision communicated vide Annexure-A1 dated 16.05.2016 annexed to MA No.966/2016.
9. With regard to the recovery of Rs.3,07,063/- the respondents would contend that the judgment of the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih would not apply to the applicant. This contention of the respondents is not acceptable as the Apex Court has held in Para 12(2) of the said judgment that recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within a year is impermissible. The recovery in the applicants case has admittedly taken place when there was less than three months for his retirement on superannuation. Hence he is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. In this view of the matter there shall also be a direction to the respondents to refund the amounts recovered from the applicant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. OA is disposed of with the above directions. With the disposal of the OA, MAs if any, stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs".
5. The Tribunal, thus with respect to grievance of reduction of the pay and re-fixation, issued a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant on the basis of the decision communicated vide Annexure-A1 dated 16.05.2015 annexed to MA No.966 of 2016 (Ex.P12) which reads as under :
"With reference to
