The principles of promissory estoppel and/or legitimate expectation cannot be invoked by the beneficiary of an act performed on the basis of a mistaken belief or a bonafide mistake for restraining any further action and/or rolling back such further action by the authority allowing it to resile from such act.

JUDGMENT :

Subrata Talukdar, J.

1.Under challenge in this appeal is the Order dated 7th February, 2022 as modified by the Order dated 16th February, 2022 passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench in the writ petition being WPO 1423 of 2021 (Ranjit Majumder & Ors. Vs. The Board of Trustees for the Shyama Prasad Mookherjee Port, Kolkata).

2. The appellant before this Court is The Board of Trustees for the Shyama Prasad Mookherjee Port, Calcutta, formally known as Kolkata Port Trust/KPT and hereinafter referred to for short only as the Board or the said Board.

3. The respondents in this appeal are the writ petitioners in WPO 1423 of 2021 (supra). In the writ petition, the said Board was the respondent.

4. The Board challenges the Order dated 7th February, 2022 as modified by the Order dated 16th February, 2022 on the ground that the Hon’ble Single Bench ought not to have restrained the Board from recovering the excess payments made to the writ petitioners on the ground of up-gradation of their pay scales. The Board submits that the upgraded pay scales were granted to the writ petitioners on the recommendation of the Ministry of Shipping, however, with the rider that such upgraded pay scale shall be only continued if the Ministry of Finance concurs in the grant of the upgraded scales.

5. The Hon’ble Single Bench discussed the issue as follows:-

“The petitioners say that the upgradation and revision of pay scale respectively with effect from 31.12.2006 and 01.01.2007 was after concurrence of the Shyama Prasad Mookerjee Port Trust (then known as Kolkata Port Trust), the Ministry of Shipping under which the said Shyama Prasad Mookerjee Port Trust functions as also Ministry of Finance after accepting the recommendation of the Pay Revision Commission (in short PRC). The respondents now cannot revisit the issue and resile out their commitment by reducing the pay scale of the Pilots fixed with effect from 1.1.2007 and 1.1.2017 and recover the excess payments, if any, from the Dock Pilots, Assistant Dock Master and Deputy Dock Master in view of the upgradation and revision of pay scale that had taken effect long back.

The petitioners, therefore, at this stage seek an interim order in aid of the final orders claimed in the writ petition by restraining the respondents and each one of them from recovering any amount which according to the said respondents have been overpaid and/or overdrawn by the petitioners for having enjoyed higher scale than that of Rs.20,600 – Rs.46,500/-. The petitioners seek a restraint order against the respondents and each one of them against their decision to fit in the petitioners to the pay scale of Rs.20,600 – Rs.46,500 against the upgraded and revised pay scale of 24,900 – 50,500 effective from 1.1.2007 which was further revised to 60,000 – 1,80,000/- with effect from 01.01.2017 and now being sought to be reduced to Rs.50,000 - 1,60,000. The petitioners have referred to a judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.1128 of 2016 (Dr. Aminul Islam Khan and Ors. Vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Ors.) on 16th September, 2020. Referring to the said judgment, it is submitted by the petitioners that in respect of other Class-I officers of the respondent no.1 other than the Pilots, the recovery of excess payments due to similar reduction in the pay scale has been quashed and/or set aside. The said judgment and order is, however, under challenge in an appeal, which is pending consideration.”

6. In the light of the above discussion, the Hon’ble Single Bench concluded as follows:-

“After considering the submissions of the respective parties and the materials on record, it appears that the matter can be finally adjudicated only after calling for affidavits. However, till the writ petition is finally heard and disposed of on affidavits, the petitioners are entitled to an interim protection otherwise the writ petition will become infructuous when it reaches the final hearing. If the recovery of alleged e