IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
NELSON SAILO, J.
Remlalnghaka and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Mizoram and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 106 of 2022
Decided on : 10-04-2024
Recovery of Excess Pay - Government Employees - Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, Mizoram (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 - The court set aside the impugned Office Memorandum dated 11.02.2014 and directed the respondents not to recover any excess drawal of pay from the petitioners. The court found that the impugned Office Memorandum did not comply with the mandatory legal requirements and that the recovery sought from the petitioners for excess drawal of pay was not permissible in law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, government employees, sought to challenge the recovery of excess drawal of pay from them, which was based on an Office Memorandum dated 11.02.2014. The petitioners had been granted compensatory increment with effect from 01.01.2014, but the Office of the Chief Controller of Accounts cancelled the compensatory increment and directed the recovery of excess pay from 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2021.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned Office Memorandum dated 11.02.2014 did not comply with the mandatory legal requirements and was therefore set aside. The court also directed the respondents not to recover any excess drawal of pay from the petitioners.
Issues: The main issue was whether the recovery sought from the petitioners for excess drawal of pay was authorized, justified, and permissible in law, and whether the impugned Office Memorandum dated 11.02.2014 was sustainable in law.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned Office Memorandum dated 11.02.2014 did not comply with the mandatory legal requirements and was set aside. The recovery sought from the petitioners for excess drawal of pay was found not permissible in law.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents not to recover any excess drawal of pay from the petitioners and set aside the impugned Office Memorandum dated 11.02.2014.
Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Govt. Advocate who appears for all the respondents. The writ petitioners have filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer:-
AND
In the interim be further pleased to pass an order directing the Respondents not to initiate refund/recovery of the excess drawal of pay with effect from 1/1/2017 to 31/12/2021 from the Petitioners till final disposal of the writ petition.”
[2.] The petitioners are all working either as Associate Professors or Professors in different Government Colleges all over Mizoram under the Mizoram Higher & Technical Education Department, Govt. of Mizoram. It is the case of the petitioners that the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Finance vide Notification dated 29.08.2008 in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and Clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution after consultation with the Comptroller & Auditor General in relation to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department notified the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (Revised Pay Rules of 2008) which came into force from 01.01.2006. Similarly, the Govt. of Mizoram in the Finance Department (Pay Research Unit) vide Notification dated 06.08.2010 notified the Mizoram (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 (ROP Rules of 2010). The notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 read with Article 162 of the Constitution of India by the Governor of Mizoram. Clause 10 of the ROP Rules of 2010 provides for the date of next increment in the revised pay structure. It provides that there will be uniform date of annual increment namely, 1st July of every year. Clause 10 of the ROP Rules of 2010 may be abstracted hereunder:-
There will be a uniform date of annual increment, viz, 1st July of every year. Employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st of July will be eligible to be granted the increment.
Provided that in the case of persons who had been drawing maximum of the existing scale for more than a year as on the 1st day of January, 2006, the next increment in the revised pay structure shall be allowed on the 1st day of January, 2006. Thereafter, the provision of Rule 11 would apply
Provided also that for those employees whose date of next increment falls on 1.1.2006, the instructions already provided for granting an increment in the prerevised pay scale as on 1.1.2006 and then fixing their pay in the revised pay scales. Such Government servants would also get their next increment on 1.7.2006.
Provided further that in cases where an employee reaches the maximum of his pay band, shall be placed in the next higher pay band after one year of reaching such a maximum. At the time of placement in the higher pay band, benefit of one increment will be provided. Thereafter, he will continue to move i
K.S.B. Ali -Vs- State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2018) 11 SCC 277
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. -Vs- The Chief Election Commissioner
State of Punjab-Vs-Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334
State of Uttaranchal & Anr. -Vs- Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors.(2011) 8 SCC 670
The impugned Office Memorandum did not comply with the mandatory legal requirements and the recovery sought from the petitioners for excess drawal of pay was not permissible in law.
The court emphasized that recovery of excess payments from Group-D employees is impermissible, and actions taken without due process violate principles of natural justice.
The recovery of excess payment made to pensioners after retirement would be impermissible if it would be iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary. Additionally, a circular issued by an officer of the State mo....
The recovery of excess salary payments must adhere to regulatory frameworks and principles of natural justice; undue hardship on the employee must be avoided.
Recovery of excess payments from employees in Class-III and Class-IV services is impermissible, especially when the excess has been enjoyed for over five years.
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 Group-C employees beyond five years is impermissible, emphasizing equitable treatment and adherence to Supreme Court guidelines.
Recovery of excess payments from employees in Group-C service is impermissible after five years, emphasizing fairness and justice in employment matters.
Post-retirement recovery of advance increments for higher qualifications from pre-1992 in-service employees invalid absent fraud; limited to 24 months pre-retirement; quashed OM cannot justify deduct....
The statutory force of rules, impermissibility of creating two classes of pensioners, and the discriminatory nature of the classification were the central legal points established in the judgment.
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.