Recovery of excess payments from Class-III employees is impermissible without misrepresentation, emphasizing the employer's responsibility for errors.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. (Dr.) Krishna Nandan Singh, learned ASGI along with Mrs. Punam Kumari Singh, learned CGC and Mr. Amarjeet, learned JC to ASGI for the respondents.

2. Petitioner has inter alia prayed for following reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:-

i. For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order of reduction of pay and recovery contained in Letter No.8422 dated 30.11.2023 (Annexure 4, Pg-23) whereby his pay was reduced and an amount of Rs.2,13,908/- has been deducted from the his gratuity, arbitrarily and illegally without issuing any Notice/Show Cause and affording any opportunity of hearing, prior to such revision and deduction and in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

ii. Issue appropriate Writ(s) and Order(s) in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order/communication contained in Letter No.2798 dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure P-2), Letter No.RPAO/CISF/MHA/RAN/PENII/23-24/218, dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure P-3), Letter No.8422, dated 30.11.2023 (Annexure P-4), Letter No.629, dated 18.03.2024 (Annexure P-6) whereby and whereunder it has been communicated, ordered and reasoned to reduce the pay any effectuate a recovery of excess amount allegedly paid to the petitioner.

iii. Issue direction to the Respondents to restore the earlier pay fixation of the petitioner.

iv. For the direction upon the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.2,13,908/- with 12% interest from the date of deduction, illegally deducted from the Gratuity of the petitioner towards recovery of excess payment made due to alleged incorrect pay fixation on dated 04.11.2008.”

Brief facts:

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.05.2004 the petitioner was appointed in Central Industrial Security Force as ASI/EXE (RO) and on 04.11.2008, the petitioner got promoted to the rank of SI/EE (RO). The petitioner represented on 04.10.2010 before the respondent no. 7 to re-fix his pay as per the Central Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2008 with effect from April, 2008, but the respondent no. 2 rejected the request of the petitioner to re-fix his pay scale. In reply to the petitioner’s query made vide letter dated 07.12.2010 and 28.03.2011, the respondent no.7 and respondent no.2 informed that seniority of the petitioner in feeder rank is not affected. Aggrieved by the action of respondent no.2, insofar as delay in promotion of the petitioner w.e.f. the date one employee Dilip Singh, who is junior to the petitioner, the respondent no.7 vide order dated 26.07.2012 promoted the petitioner notionally w.e.f 02.05.2008 and re-fixed basic pay equal to SI/Exe Dilip Singh, who was junior to the petitioner. The petitioner superannuated on 31.07.2023 and on 06.12.2023, petitioner made representation before the respondent no.6, requesting to release his pensionary benefits. Respondent no.6 vide letter no.2798 dated 08.12.2023 communicated the petitioner that Regional Pay and Account Office, CISF, Ranchi vide letter dated 12.10.2023 has raised objection in fixation of salary from 04.11.2008 in the pension paper of the petitioner. The petitioner vide letter dated 12.03.2024 made the representation before respondent no.6 and sought cogent reasons for the revision of pay and recovery of Rs.2,13,908/- from gratuity. Thereafter, the respondent no.6 vide its letter no.629 dated 18.03.2024, in response to the aforesaid representation, communicated that, vide letter no.8422 dated 30.11.2023, a decision was taken by respondents to reduce the pay of the petitioner and effectuate a recovery of Rs.2,13,908 from gratuity on account of incorrect pay fixation on 04.11.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Argument of respective parties:

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted