IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Binod Kumar Chandra – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P (S) No. 4884 of 2017
Decided on : 02-07-2024
JUDGMENT :
This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for the following reliefs:-
(b) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of all consequential orders taken through office orders contained in letter no.914 & 915 dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure-6 Series) and letter no.940 & 941 dated 21.12.2016 (Annexure-7 Series) whereby the pay scale of the petitioner has been lowered with effect from 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 respectively in a most mechanical and arbitrary manner and in violation of the settled principles of law.
(c) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing office order contained in letter no.978 dated 30.12.2016 (Annexure-8) issued under the signature of Executive Engineer, Konar Canal Division, Dumri where under the said authority in the light of directions given by the chief engineer, water resources department, Hazaribagh in the letter no.1679 dated 17.11.2016 and decision taken with respect to the aforesaid letter through all consequential orders contained in letter no.914 & 915 dated 02.12.2016 and letter no.940 & 941 dated 21.12.2016, later confirmed by District Account officer, has passed an order to recover the total amount of Rs.6,28,557/- which has been paid in excess to the petitioner in a most arbitrary and illegal manner without considering the fact that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement i.e.31.10.2017.”
And for the ancillary reliefs.
2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Apurva Singh, learned A.C to S.C (Mines) and Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no.7-Accountant General.
3. It is submitted that letter dated 17.11.2016 issued by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Hazaribagh is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner has been appointed on 22.11.1987 as Draftsmen Category-II and different pay scale was fixed vide Memo dated 29.03.2003 (Annexure-2) in the light of the resolution dated 25.06.2005 in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 and Rs.4,000-6,000 respectively. Thereafter the petitioner was granted promotion from Draftsmen Category-II to Draftsmen Category-I w.e.f 01.10.1997 in the pay scale of Rs.4,500-7,000 and which was revised to Rs.5,000-8,000 vide letter dated 23.08.2005. Then he was granted benefit of 6th Pay Revision Committee w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in the pay scale of Rs.9,300-34,800 plus Grade Pay Rs.4200 vide statement of fixation dated 19.03.2009 marked as Annexure-4. However, suddenly vide letter dated 17.11.2016 (Annexure-5) the Chief Engineer informed the Executive Engineer that the petitioner was granted PB-II Grade pay Rs.4200 wrongly as the petitioner is not having the aforesaid Diploma in Engineering and as such the petitioner will be entitled to pay scale PB-I Grade pay of Rs.2800 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Likewise the pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000 was reduced to Rs.4,000-6,000 as the petitioner is not having the Diploma in Engineering. Even on the same day
Recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible if there is no misrepresentation or suppression of facts, especially when nearing retirement.
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 emphasized that recovery of excess payments from Group-D employees is impermissible, and actions taken without due process violate principles of natural justice.
(1) Recovery – Any decision taken by State Government to reduce an employee’s pay scale and recover excess amount cannot be applied retrospectively and that too after a long time gap.(2) Any step of ....
Recovery of excess payments from Class-III employees is impermissible without evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles.
Recovery of excess payments from employees is prohibited if it causes undue hardship, especially for lower-ranked workers or retirees, reaffirming rights under Article 14.
Recovery of excess payments made to employees is impermissible where no fault exists on the employee's part and payments have spanned over five years, protecting livelihood rights.
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.