Point of Law : Recovery of excess salary amount paid - It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, yet in the following situations, recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law.

ORDER :

On 30.11.2015, the respondents issued an order for recovery of amount from the salary of the petitioner on account of alleged wrong fixation of his pay for the period 1.1.1996 to 30.11.2015. This order was followed by a notice dated 07.12.2015 informing the petitioner that Rs.218067/- is to be recovered from him in compliance to office order dated 30.11.2015. These actions of the respondents have compelled the petitioner to institute the present petition seeking quashing of recovery order as well as the notice.

2. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the material available on record, the following factual position of the case emerges:-

2(i) The petitioner was initially appointed against the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher (JBT) on ad-hoc basis. He joined as such on 26.09.1989 in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2100 fixed at Rs.1200/-. His services were regularized as JBT on 06.10.1993. He was promoted to the post of Language Teacher on 17.02.2000. The pay-scale was revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and the existing old scale of 1.1.1986 was accordingly revised. Petitioner’s pay scale was also revised from Rs.1200-2100 to Rs.4550-7220. Petitioner was granted bunching benefits w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Basic pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.4850/- by giving him two additional increments over and above the bunching benefits.

2(ii) In the year 2015, the respondents observed that petitioner’s basic pay as on 31.12.1995 was Rs.1420/- and on revision of pay-scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 his pay was to be fixed at Rs.4550/- instead of Rs.4850/-. The respondents also took into consideration the Government letter dated 24.12.2010 that benefit of bunching increments shall not be admissible on the initial ad-hoc service. The respondents, therefore, passed an order on 30.11.2015 (part of Annexure P-1) re-fixing petitioner’s pay and also directing recovery in lumpsum of the excess amount paid to him due to wrong fixation of his pay for the period from 1.1.1996 to 30.11.2015.

2(iii) In pursuance to the order dated 30.11.2015, respondents issued a notice to the petitioner on 07.12.2015 (Annexure A-1) directing him to pay an amount of Rs.218067/-.

In the above backdrop of facts, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the following substantial reliefs:-

“A. Quash the impugned notice Annexure A-1 being arbitrary malafide and illegal.

B. Direction be issued to the respondent department not to attach the salary of the petitioner on the basis of Annexure A-1.”

3. In the present petition, the petitioner has not disputed that his pay was wrongly fixed by the respondents for the period in question. His only grievance in the instant petition is against the recovery of excess payment ordered by the respondents for the period in question.

4. During hearing of the case, learned Additional Advocate General placed on record instructions dated Nil June, 2022 to the effect that “petitioner Sh. Suresh Dutt after order dated 30.11.2015 was getting pay scale Rs.18350+4400 Grade Pay which is in terms of the entitlement of the petitioner to the post concerned at that relevant time.”

5. Observations

In view of the pleadings of the parties, the only issue to be adjudicated is whether the respondents are entitled to effect recovery from the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of his pay by them for the period 1.1.1996 to 30.11.2015.

5(i). The issue involved is no longer res integra. Taking note of various precedents of the Hon’ble Apex Court including the Col. B. J. Akkara (Retd.) Vs. Government of India and Others (2006) 11 SCC 709, Syed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475, Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. Vs State of Uttrakhand and Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 417, State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (2015) 4 SCC 334 (2) and High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors Vs. Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 SCC 267, Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3145/2019 titled S.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. alongwith connect