IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Ranbir Singh Sehrawat – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 1630 of 2023
Decided On : 10-05-2023
Grade Pay - Central Administrative Tribunal - The court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a decision on the limited issue of grade pay, granting time to the DDA to justify the policy decision and allowing the petitioner to file a response to the additional affidavit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding the re-fixing of his salary and withdrawal of grade pay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal had relied on the policy of the DDA without justification and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for further consideration.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner is entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.4,200 and the justification for fixing the pay at Rs.2,800.
Ratio Decidendi: The court deemed it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Tribunal, granting time to the DDA to justify the policy decision and allowing the petitioner to file a response to the additional affidavit.
Final Decision: The matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for a decision on the limited issue, and the petitioner was granted the liberty to file a response to the additional affidavit.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)
1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated January 17, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the Original Application being OA 2976/2019, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA to a limited extent by stating in paragraph 9 as under:
"9. It is further seen that the salary of the applicant has been re-fixed on 30.06.2016 i.e. 06.01.2013, for the said receipt of the amount the applicant has not committed any act of commission or omission in receiving the amount, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for receiving the said amount in excess of his legitimate dues. For the reason the said recovery cannot be sustained. The respondents are directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,41,177/- as reflected in para-1 of the counter reply to the applicant within a period of four weeks along with interest at GPF rates from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
2. The grievance of the petitioner as urged by his Counsel is that the Tribunal should have also considered the issue whether or not the petitioner is entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.4,200, which was sought to be taken back by the respondents herein by fixing at Rs.2,800/-.
3. We find that in paragraph 7 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has relied upon the policy of the DDA. On a specific query to Mr. Arun Birbal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent DDA as to what is the justification in the policy to grant grade pay of Rs.2,800/-, he states the same has to be seen from the records maintained by the DDA wherein the decision has been taken.
4. In view of the submission made by Mr. Birbal and the fact that the circular does not record the reasons for taking a decision to fix the pay of the petitioner at Rs.2,800/-, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Tribunal by granting time to the DDA to file additional affidavit justifying the policy decision. Any observation of the Tribunal, with regard to withdrawal of grade pay of Rs.4200/- and fixing at Rs.2800/- is set aside. The OA is revived on the Board of the Tribunal for a decision on the limited issue. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to file response to the additional affidavit that shall be filed by the DDA within eight weeks from today. For this purpose, list the matter before the Joint Registrar of the Tribunal on July 5, 2023.
The court emphasized the need for justification in policy decisions and allowed the petitioner the opportunity to respond to additional affidavits.
The court has the authority to revive an Original Application for further consideration and can remand the matter for fresh consideration by the Tribunal.
Recovery of excess payments may be impermissible if it falls within the situations outlined by the Supreme Court, as recovery cannot be effected in such cases.
The binding nature of an employee's undertaking regarding the recovery of excess pay and the authority of competent authorities to re-fix pay scale based on applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders....
Opportunity to be heard and prejudice to the petitioner are essential considerations in matters of recovery of excess salary.
The judgment established the principle that recovery of excess payment can be ordered unless extreme hardship is caused to the employee. It also highlighted the importance of public money and the rel....
Point of Law - Supreme Court has directed that the recovery from the employees belonging to the Class-III and IV service is “impermissible in law” and also if the same is effected after a period of f....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.