Employees cannot be required to refund salaries disbursed based on valid pay fixation, as it is not their fault if the Corporation later rationalizes pay.

JUDGMENT :

K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.,

The appellant is the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for brevity ‘Corporation’) aggrieved with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which allowed the writ petition filed by the party-respondents herein; to the extent of restraining the Corporation from recovering amounts as per the impugned letter dated 06.01.2017, which was a consequence of rationalisation of pay fixation of ex-servicemen, arising from the guidelines issued by the Government of India.

2. The learned Single Judge clearly found that the guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 17.02.2014 applicable to the public sector insurance companies, was not challenged in the writ petition and only the consequential pay fixation under the impugned order was challenged. While declining to interfere with the pay fixation, as noticed above, the Respondent-Corporation was restrained from making any recovery by reason of such pay fixation.

3. The appeal was filed with a delay of 84 days and we heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation on merits.

4. The learned Counsel for the Corporation pointed out that the guidelines specifically related to ex-servicemen re-employed in public sector banks on or after 01.01.2006 and hence, the re-fixation has to be from the date of appointment and if there is any excess amounts disbursed on the basis of the earlier fixation; it would be perfectly in order to seek refund of the same. It is also contended that there were many cases in which the fixation was found to be bad on the ground of the last pay certificate having not been issued properly. This was a ground specifically raised in the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit; which the learned Single Judge refused to consider.

5. At the outset, we have to notice that the re-fixation, as per the impugned order, was based on the guidelines of 2014 issued by the Government of India and so was the recovery ordered, based on such re-fixation. There was no allegation or ground in the impugned order with respect to the last pay certificate furnished by the individual writ petitioners. The further contention taken in the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit cannot at all be countenanced, as has been held in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, (1978) 1 SCC 405. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held and declared that an impugned action is to be judged by the reasons stated while making the order and supplementary reasons in the shape of affidavits are to be excluded.

6. Following the above dictum, we reject, at the outset, the contention taken regarding furnishing of last pay certificate and confine the consideration in the appeal to the matter dealt with in the impugned judgment, as considered by the learned Single Judge.

7. Admittedly, there is no challenge against the guidelines or the fixation as such, which was to rationalise the pay fixation in the public sector organisations, wherein ex-servicemen are appointed on re-employment. We find the learned Single Judge having correctly observed that since there is no challenge against the guidelines, the fixation cannot at all be interfered with. There is also no appeal filed by the writ petitioners against the said finding of the learned Single Judge.

8. In the present case, we confine the consideration to the recovery and the challenge against the restrictive order passed by the learned Single Judge.

9. The counter affidavit in the writ petition has produced a guideline issued by the Central Government on 17.02.2014, as Annexure-A. It is with respect to the fixation of pay of ex-servicemen on re-employment, who have been so re-employed on or after 01.01.2006. From Annexure-1 series produced, the writ petitioners No. 1, 4, 5 and 6 are seen to have been appointed in the year 2009. The date of appointment of writ petitioners No. 2 and 3 is not evident, but there is no dispute with respect to their appointment also being after 01.01.20