Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 573
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, J.
Gauri Shankar, S/o. Sh. Satya Narayan Purohit & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Medical and Health Department Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14071 of 2017 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9334 of 2014, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9335 of 2014, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7098 of 2015
Decided On : 24-05-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pramendra Bohra.
For the Respondent: Mr. Hemant Dutt.
IMPORTANT POINT
Recoveries from employees, especially from lower service classes, are impermissible in the absence of misrepresentation or wrongdoing, and courts must consider the equity of such recoveries.
Headnote:
RECOVERY - PENSION AND PAY FIXATION - Raj Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1997; State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 334 - The court addressed the legality of recovery orders against the petitioners regarding their pay fixation and pension benefits. It emphasized that recoveries from employees, particularly from Class III and IV services, are impermissible under certain conditions, including lack of misrepresentation by the employee and the timing of the recovery. The court found no evidence of misrepresentation by the petitioner and ruled that the recovery orders were not sustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, initially appointed as a Ward Boy in 1989, was promoted to LDC and granted various pay grades over the years. Upon retirement in 2015, the pension department raised objections regarding the eligibility for the third selection grade, leading to recovery orders against the petitioner for excess payments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no misrepresentation or concealment by the petitioner that would justify the recovery of excess payments. The orders for recovery were deemed unsustainable based on the principles established in prior case law.
Issues: Whether the recovery orders against the petitioner were justified given the absence of misrepresentation and the applicable legal principles regarding recovery from employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles from the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih, which outlines circumstances under which recovery from employees is impermissible, particularly emphasizing the lack of wrongdoing by the employee and the nature of their service.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the recovery orders were set aside. Any amounts recovered from the petitioners were to be refunded with interest as per applicable service rules.
JUDGMENT :
Arun Monga, J.
1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in this bunch of petitions, they are being decided by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP No.14071/2017.
2. The grievance of the petitioners herein stems from the orders dated 01.03.2016 (Annex.6), 09.10.2017 (Annex.10), 25.11.2024 (Annex.18), 08.06.2015 (Annex.9), 16.06.2015 (Annex.10), and 25.11.2014 (Annex.25) respectively, by which recovery was ordered against the petitioners.
3. Briefly, the relevant facts as pleaded in CWP No.14071/2017 are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Ward Boy (Class-IV employee) on 21.05.1989 and was granted the 1st Selection Grade after 12 years of service.
3.1 The petitioner was promoted to the post of LDC in the pay scale of Rs.950-1680/-. After promotion, the services of the petitioner were governed by the Raj Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1997.
3.2 In pursuance of the order dated 03.12.1996, the petitioner joined duty as an LDC, and in pursuance of the notification dated 25.01.1992, the petitioner was granted the benefit of the 1st selection grade on completion of 9 years of service in the post of LDC, vide order dated 31.10.2006.
3.3 On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired on 31.07.2015, and the CPO, PPO was issued by the respondents. 3.4 The pension case of the petitioner was sent to the pension department for revision of the pension. However, by order dated 19.09.2016, the pension department raised an objection regarding the benefit of the third selection grade to the petitioner. The pension department specifically stated in the order that the petitioner is not eligible for the 3rd selection grade.
3.5 By order dated 22.05.2017, the respondent department amended the grade pay to Rs.3,200/- instead of Rs.3,600/- after the completion of 27 years of service.
3.6 In pursuance of the order dated 29.05.2017, the respondents passed an order dated 29.06.2017, and by this order, the respondent department sent the case of the petitioner to the pension department for revision of his pension according to the grade pay of Rs.3,200/- and issued a recovery of excess payment order.
3.7 Vide order dated 09.10.2017, the respondent department cancelled the orders dated 01.03.2016 and 22.05.2017 due to objections raised by the pension department. Hence, this petition.
4. In the reply, the defense taken is that vide order dated 01.03.2016, the petitioner was granted ACP on completion of 27 years of service in the pay band of Rs.9,300-34,800/- w.e.f 10.09.2006 by treating his 1st date of appointment as 21.05.1959. Vide order dated 09.10.2017, based on the objection of the pension department, he was granted said ACP on completion of 27 years w.e.f. 01.09.2006 at Rs.5,200-20,200/-with grade pay of Rs.2,800/-.
4.1 This is a matter regarding his pay fixation and, on that account, varying amounts of pension etc. Thus, from a bare perusal of the relief clause (i), it would reveal that the petitioner has essentially raised a “Service Matter” regarding his pay fixation and consequent variations in pension etc., for which an alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. Despite this, the petitioner pursued this petition before this Hon’ble Court. Thus, the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.
5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the case file.
6. What transpires herein is a short controversy as to whether there was any misrepresentation and concealment of any kind on the part of the petitioner, which led to him being accorded the benefit of a higher scale than he deserved.
7. From the bare pleadings themselves, it is borne out, particularly in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, that there is no allegation of any kind attributed to the petitioner regarding any misrepresentation and/or concealment. The superiors in the office, at the relevant time, at their own volition, accorded the benefit
