Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRAMATH PATNAIK, J.
RAM CHARITRA SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY OF STATE OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI - Respondent
Writ Petition (S) No. 4553 of 2009
Decided on : 08-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
Manish Kumar, Adv., Anuj Verman, Adv.
Recovery of excess payment from employees in certain service categories and in specific circumstances is impermissible under the law.
Headnote:
Recovery - Employment Dispute - Resolution No. 2714, 1981 - Memo dated 30.01.2008 - Memo dated 3.08.2009 - Article 14 of the Constitution of India - State of Punjab And Others Vs. Rafiq Masih, (white washer) And Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, working as Head Clerks, sought a writ to prevent recovery of excess payment and placement in a lower pay scale by the authorities. They were initially appointed in Dairy Corporation, Bihar, and later absorbed into the Animal Husbandry Department of the State of Bihar. The dispute arose when the authorities communicated that excess payment should be recovered from the employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the petitioners, citing judicial pronouncements and legal principles. It held that recovery of excess payment from employees in Class III and Class IV service, or those due to retire soon, is impermissible. The court also emphasized that recovery would be iniquitous if it outweighs the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.
Issues: The issues revolved around the recovery of excess payment and placement in a lower pay scale by the authorities, and the alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Resolution No. 2714, 1981, Memo dated 30.01.2008, and Memo dated 3.08.2009, along with the legal principle established in the case of State of Punjab And Others Vs. Rafiq Masih, to decide that recovery of excess payment and placement in a lower pay scale was not legally sustainable.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioners.
PRAMATH PATNAIK, J.
1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Anuj Verman, learned A.C. to S.C. V appearing for the Respondent-State.
2. In this writ application, the petitioners have sought for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding upon the respondents-authorities not to make any recovery from the petitioners and also not to place them in a lower pay scale in terms of Annexure-4, issued by the respondents authorities.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application, are that the petitioners are working as Head Clerks under the respondents-authorities. Initially, the petitioners were appointed in Dairy Corporation, Bihar, Patna and posted in different places on daily wages in Class-III posts by one order contained in order dated 29.09.1977 and after completing more than 240 days, the Corporation had decided to regularize their services and they were regularized against Class-III post. It has been further averred that in the year 1984, the State of Bihar decided to absorb the Corporation vide resolution dated 10.02.1984 and it was decided to absorb the employees of Corporation either in the federation or in the respondents-State in its Animal Husbandry Department and a formal letter was communicated on 24.02.1984 and the names of the petitioners were sent to the Animal Husbandry Department for their absorption vide letter dated 07.02.1986 and the petitioners were formally absorbed and they were appointed in the Department of animal Husbandry of the State of Bihar against ClassIII post and their earlier period of service was counted to protect the pay of the petitioners vide order dated 15.01.1987. It has been further averred that in the meantime, some of the petitioners completed more than 10 years of service, if taken together under the respondents-Corporation and as regards the time bound promotion, the Respondent-State of Bihar in the Finance Department came out with one Resolution dated 30.12.1981 and it was decided that the employee, who had completed 10 years of service and did not get promotion should be given the next higher scale of pay by way of time bound promotion. The petitioners, who were initially appointed under the Corporation and subsequently absorbed under the respondents-State, were granted time bound promotion to the next higher grade after counting their services under the respondents-corporation. It has been further averred that subsequently, after reorganization of the State, the services of the petitioners were placed under the State of Jharkhand and they were confirmed in 1989 and the petitioners were given the benefit of the first A.C.P. by the State of Jharkhand from 9.8.1999 vide order dated 8.12.2005. Thereafter, in pursuance to the recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee, constituted under the chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam, the Department of Animal Husbandry issued an order contained in Memo dated 30.01.2008, whereby scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- instead of scale of Rs. 4500-7000 has been provided to the petitioners after approval of the Finance Department. However, vide memo dated 3.08.2009 (Annexure-4), it was communicated that excess amount, which has been paid should be realized from the employees. Being aggrieved by the memo dated 3.08.2009 (Annexure-4), whereby it was communicated that excess amount, which has been paid should be realized from the employees and left with no alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that once the monetary benefits is already paid to the employees and there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud, the amount cannot be recovered. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents authorities have acted in violation of Article 14 of the C
