Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Riaz Ali – Appellant
Versus
GNCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 9578 of 2023, CM Appl. 36650 of 2023
Decided On : 26-07-2023
Pay Fixation - Central Administrative Tribunal - The court revived the Original Application for the Tribunal to consider the aspect of wrong fixation of pay and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. No further recovery was permitted from the petitioner's salary until the matter was decided by the Tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding the fixation of pay.
Finding of the Court:
The court revived the Original Application and remanded the matter for the Tribunal to consider the aspect of wrong fixation of pay. No further recovery was permitted from the petitioner's salary until the matter was decided by the Tribunal.
Issues: Challenge to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding pay fixation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the revival of the Original Application for the Tribunal to consider the aspect of wrong pay fixation and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Final Decision: The petition stands disposed of, and pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)--The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated March 07, 2023 passed in O.A. No. 2635/2022 and order dated April 28, 2021 passed in R.A. No. 55/2023 in O.A. No. 2635/2022 by Central Administrative Tribunal (`Tribunal' in short), Principal Bench, New Delhi.
2. After some submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he shall not press this petition except that the Tribunal should consider the aspect of wrong fixation of pay by the audit in the letter dated September 21, 2021, more specifically, when the pay was fixed on August 18, 2007. The submission is that even if the petitioner is not entitled to pay of Rs.18210/-, his pay cannot be fixed at Rs.16950/- but should be at Rs.17140/-. He has drawn our attention to the prayer made in the Original Application, page No. 93 of the paperbook more specifically (VII), wherein such a relief was sought.
3. Mr. Jain and Mr. Singh are agreeable if the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration, insofar as this relief No. VII is concerned.
4. Noting the same, the Original Application is revived on the Board of the Tribunal for the Tribunal to consider the prayer VII as made in the Original Application.
5. Accordingly, parties shall appear before the Tribunal on August 10, 2023 and Tribunal shall hear the parties on the date fixed or on any date convenient to it, and shall dispose of the Original Application within three months from today, as an outer limit.
6. Till the matter is decided by the Tribunal, no further recovery shall be affected from the salary of the petitioner in view of the order of the Tribunal dated March 07, 2023 as the Tribunal has permitted the respondents to make recovery post January 01, 2016.
7. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
The court has the authority to revive an Original Application for further consideration and can remand the matter for fresh consideration by the Tribunal.
The court's decision was influenced by the implementation of previous judgments and the direction to the respondents to take a final decision in parity with the previous cases.
A tribunal's decisions must provide adequate reasoning; a lack thereof renders the decision unsustainable, necessitating remittance for reevaluation.
The court emphasized the need for justification in policy decisions and allowed the petitioner the opportunity to respond to additional affidavits.
Court disposed writ petition as relief granted; permitted challenge to pay fixation errors separately.
The court established that while authorities can correct pay fixation errors, the recovery of excess payments must consider the potential hardship to the employee, especially after a long period.
Recovery of alleged excess salary payments from Group 'C' or 'D' employees, which occurred due to administrative error without any misrepresentation by the employee, is impermissible in law.
The authority can rectify pay fixation errors at any time, but recovery of excess payments after a long delay may be unjust and cause hardship.
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
