IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Sanjay Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 3766 of 2007 with CM APPLs. 7075 of 2007, 1834 of 2008, 2463 of 2008, 3826 of 2008, 11490 of 2008, 51991 of 2022
Decided On : 11-04-2023
Pay Scale - Challenge to withdrawal of higher pay scale - [General Manager, Punjab Bhawan] - [2002, 2005, 2007] - The court discussed the appointment of the petitioner to the post of General Manager, the creation of a temporary post, the pay scale revisions, and the legality of the higher pay scale granted to the petitioner. The court highlighted the administrative exigency, the petitioner's awareness of the temporary nature of the post, and the inadmissibility of the higher pay scale without concurrence of the Finance Department. The court also emphasized the recovery of excess payment and cited relevant judgments and government notifications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the withdrawal of a higher pay scale granted to him as General Manager of Punjab Bhawan, along with the notice for recovery of excess amounts. The petitioner contended that the withdrawal and subsequent actions were bad in law and that he was entitled to the higher pay scale due to his duties and responsibilities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was appointed to a specially created temporary post in his own pay scale and was not entitled to the higher pay scale admissible to the regular post of General Manager. The court upheld the recovery of excess payment and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the higher pay scale granted to the petitioner, the nature of his appointment, and the validity of the withdrawal and recovery actions taken by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's awareness of the temporary nature of the post, the inadmissibility of the higher pay scale without concurrence of the Finance Department, and the recovery of excess payment during the petitioner's employment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and all pending applications.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)--The present writ petition has been filed challenging the office order dated 26.04.2007 issued by the Principal Resident Commissioner, Punjab Government, Punjab Bhawan, New Delhi by which the office order dated 20.01.2005 was withdrawn. Earlier, by office order dated 20.01.2005, the petitioner had been granted a higher pay scale of Rs.12,000-16,350/-. Subsequently, by the impugned office order dated 26.04.2007, the aforesaid higher pay scale granted to the petitioner was withdrawn. Further, the petitioner has also challenged the notice dated 13.04.2007 issued by the respondent for withdrawal of the higher pay scale as aforesaid. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the decision dated 26.02.2007 of the respondent by which the petitioner was intimated that the office order dated 20.01.2005 has been withdrawn.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent in the year 1984 on the post of reception-cum-hospitality officer of Punjab Bhawan, New Delhi. The petitioner worked on the said post for more than 18 years and was getting the pay scale of Rs.7,880-13,500/-, with initial start of Rs.8,000/-.
3. The petitioner was appointed to the post of General Manager, Punjab Bhawan vide office order dated 15.04.2002 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of General Administration, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh. In the said order it was mentioned that such arrangement shall continue till an officer of Indian Administrative Service (IAS)/Punjab Civil Service (PCS) was appointed on regular basis. It is the case of the petitioner that by subsequent order dated 21.05.2002, the stipulation that the arrangement will continue only till an IAS/PCS Officer is appointed on regular basis was deleted. The petitioner was, thus, promoted to the post of General Manager on his existing pay scale, i.e., Rs.7,880-13,500/-, with an initial start of Rs.8000/-.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that by order dated 13.11.2002 issued on 14.11.2002, the Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, accorded sanction to the creation of 1 post of General Manager, Punjab Bhawan, New Delhi. The said post of General Manager was created with the concurrence of Finance Department, duly conveyed by order dated 20.09.2002. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner joined the post of General Manager and shouldered higher responsibilities.
5. The petitioner continued to work on the post of General Manager on the scale of Rs.7,880-13,500/- in the office of the Principal Resident Commissioner, Punjab Government, Punjab Bhawan, New Delhi. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Punjab Government vide its letter dated 14.07.1998 had fixed the revised scale for the post of General Manager as Rs.12,000-16,350/-. Hence, petitioner filed representation on 05.01.2005 before the Principal Resident Commissioner with request to be granted the scale admissible to the post of General Manager, in terms of letter dated 14.07.1998 of the Punjab Government.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 25.03.2003, the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh had delegated the financial and administrative jurisdiction of the Chief Secretary as Administrative Secretary to the Principal Resident Commissioner. Thus, the Principal Resident Commissioner was vested with the power of Chief Secretary as per order dated 24.03.2003 issued by Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh.
7. Thus, it is contended that the Principal Resident Commissioner, Punjab Bhawan, Punjab Government, New Delhi forwarded a note dated 17.01.2005 for issuance of an order to the effect that the petitioner be given pay scale of Rs.12000-16350/- without any delay. Subsequently, approval was also sought from the Chief Minister of Punjab,
The appointment to a specially created temporary post does not entitle the petitioner to a higher pay scale without concurrence of the Finance Department, and recovery of excess payment can be made d....
The main legal point established is that financial benefits given without misrepresentation or fraud are not liable to be recovered, and any order passed in violation of the principles of natural jus....
Recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible if there is no misrepresentation or suppression of facts, especially when nearing retirement.
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees, particularly those in Class III and IV service, is impermissible under law, especially when no fraud or misrepresentation has occurred.
Recovery of excess payment from employees must adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot be made after an unreasonable delay, especially for Class-3 employees.
The court ruled against arbitrary recovery of excess salary, emphasizing protections for employees and the necessity for compliance with procedural justice.
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.