Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.
Ratansinh L Bamaniya & Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Gujarat Thro Secretary & Ors. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 1821 of 2012
Decided On : 05-03-2024
Articles 14, 16, 21, 226 - Pay-Scale Dispute - Government Resolutions - Recovery of Excess Payment - Writ Petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as daily wagers/helpers and were later considered permanent employees. They were granted pay scale benefits under the Fifth and Sixth Pay Commissions. However, an order was issued to revise their pay scale, leading to a dispute over pay fixation and recovery of excess amount. The petitioners also challenged the recovery of an amount from the gratuity of one petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were entitled to the higher pay scale as per the Government Resolutions and that the recovery initiated by the respondents was unjust, illegal, and arbitrary. The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the recovery from the gratuity was also declared illegal.
Issues: The issues involved the correctness of pay fixation, recovery of excess payment, and entitlement to arrears as per the Government Resolutions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were entitled to the higher pay scale as per the Government Resolutions and that the recovery initiated by the respondents was unjust, illegal, and arbitrary.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were quashed and set aside, the recovery from the gratuity was declared illegal, and the respondents were directed to fix the salary based on the pay scale of Rs.950 – 1400 from the date of completion of fifteen years of service. The petitioners were also entitled to get the arrears as per the Government Resolutions, to be paid within four months.
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition are filed by the petitioners under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:-
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare that the petitioners are rightfully entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.950-1500; Rs.3050-4590 and subsequent pay revision of Rs.5200-20200.
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to permanently restrain the respondents from issuing any recovery order and recovering the same from the petitioners pursuant to the impugned order dated 19.04.2010.
(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents herein to re-fix the pay of the petitioners in the pay-scale of Rs.950-1500 instead of Rs.750-940 and in the pay-scale of Rs.3050 – 4590 instead of Rs.2550-3200.
(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioners as per the 6th Central Pay Commission in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200 instead of Rs.4440-7440 and to pay the arrears from 01.01.2006.
(EA) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the Pension/Gratuity Payment Order issued by the respondent no. 4 on 10.7.2015 as bad in law and illegal to the extent that it permits recovery of Rs.25,094 from the gratuity payable to the petitioner no.2.
(EB) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to refund the amount of Rs.25,094 to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
(F) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 19.04.2010 issued by the respondent no.2.
(G) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioners.
(H) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the petitioners in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200 instead of Rs.4440-7440 as per the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2009.
(I) Any other and further orders being fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. The facts are that the petitioners no.1 to 5 were appointed as daily wagers/helpers in respondent no.5 from 21.01.1981 to 07.12.1983 and by virtue of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the petitioners have been permanent employees after about ten years. Thereafter, from time to time the petitioners have been considered for the higher pay scale and they have been granted and extended the benefits under the Fifth and Sixth Pay Commissions by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2009 and vide order dated 19.09.2010, the petitioners no.1 to 5 granted pay band of Rs.4440 - 7440 with grade pay of Rs.1300. The petitioner received individual re- fixation orders on 19.04.2010 issued by respondent No.2, which order/s suggests that the petitioners are unqualified helper and therefore they are not entitled to pay-scale of Rs.3050-4590. The petitioners were re-fixed in the pay-scale of Rs.750-940 and corresponding higher pay-scale of Rs.2550-3200. The order mentioned that the Account Office vide its communication dated 10.11.2009 inter alia stating that the petitioners have been wrongly fixed in their existing pay-scale. Further it is stated that the office of Director of Pension and Provident Fund is sending the pension paper of the petitioners back with objections. The order dated 19.04.2010 issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioners individually has been passed without issuing a show- cause notice or giving them a personal hearing. Though the petitioners are entitled for the benefits as per the Gover
The court established that the petitioners were entitled to the higher pay scale as per the Government Resolutions and that the recovery initiated by the respondents was unjust, illegal, and arbitrar....
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.
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....
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.
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
