Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Gulab Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others – Respondent
WRIT A No. - 43109 of 2015
Decided On : 22-01-2021
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other Than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 – Rule 61 and 62 – Promotion – Petitioner commenced his career's journey as a Conductor with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, – He was promoted to the post of a Booking Clerk. He had a smooth ride for the most part of his career until the fag end of it. – The petitioner served the Corporation from 01.12.1981 to 31.08.2014. – While in service, the petitioner was granted the first selection grade with effect from 01.12.1991, on completion of 10 years continuous satisfactory service. His pay-scale was revised accordingly. – The petitioner was granted a second selection grade with effect from 01.12.2001, on completion of 20 years continuous satisfactory service, with a corresponding revision of his pay. – Again on 19.02.2013, by means of an order of that date, the petitioner was granted benefit of the third Assured Career Progression, – He was granted grade-pay of Rs. 4200/- with effect from 01.12.2001. Upon grant of this ACP, the petitioner’s emoluments were revised and he was also paid arrears.
Finding of the court: Orders passed by Regional Manager of Corporation at Aligarh, in the opinion of this Court, have not been able to purge themselves of the vice of denial of opportunity. – The orders aforesaid would clearly be bad, in the opinion of this Court, on this score. – An answer to the question whether orders being found to be bad on ground of denial of opportunity, should respondents be given the logical right to hear the petitioner afresh, confronting him with material on the basis of which he has been subjected to an adverse revision or diminution in his emoluments, would ordinarily be in the employer's favour. – But, here is a case where the petitioner is a retired Class-III employee, who is exposed to the peril or a sufferance of a diminution in his emoluments, because the employers have committed a mistake in reading his service records, while granting him the first and the second selection grades. – It would be most inequitable and illogical, at this distance of time, to subject the petitioner to the otherwise logical consequence of a callous mistake made by the employers years ago, when the petitioner was in their employ. – This opinion, this Court expresses, on the supposition that if heard, the petitioner would still be subject to a downward revision of his emoluments. – It is not known whether it would truly be so. But in any view of the matter, the equities that arise on the principles settled in Rafiq Masih, the employers ought not to be permitted to recover from the petitioner.
Result:– Writ Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT
J.J. Munir,J.
1. The petitioner commenced his career's journey as a Conductor with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, [hereinafter referred to as “Corporation”]. He was promoted to the post of a Booking Clerk. He had a smooth ride for the most part of his career until the fag end of it. The petitioner served the Corporation from 01.12.1981 to 31.08.2014. While in service, the petitioner was granted the first selection grade with effect from 01.12.1991, on completion of 10 years continuous satisfactory service. His pay-scale was revised accordingly. The petitioner was granted a second selection grade with effect from 01.12.2001, on completion of 20 years continuous satisfactory service, with a corresponding revision of his pay. Again on 19.02.2013, by means of an order of that date, the petitioner was granted benefit of the third Assured Career Progression, [for short “ACP”]. He was granted grade-pay of Rs. 4200/- with effect from 01.12.2001. Upon grant of this ACP, the petitioner’s emoluments were revised and he was also paid arrears.
2. Trouble for the petitioner began on 14.03.2014, when he was issued with a charge sheet. It appears that at the relevant time, the petitioner was deputed to do the work of Issue Clerk in the Checking Department at the Aligarh Establishment of the Corporation. It was his duty to deposit receipts of the Corporation in the Corporation Treasury on a single queue bus service received on a daily basis. The petitioner, however, was charged with depositing the receipts of the Corporation accumulated over a number of days, instead of doing it daily. This was prima facie found to be a violation of the rules of the Corporation, besides an act of negligence. The petitioner was charged, as already said, on 14.03.2014, with violation of Rule 61 and 62 of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other Than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, [for short “Regulations of 1981”].
3. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet, denying all the charges against him. Pending disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner retired, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.08.2014. The departmental inquiry that had been initiated against the petitioner went ahead and an inquiry report was submitted on 13.11.2014, according to which, the petitioner was found negligent in the performance of his duties. It was one of the petitioner’s defences that he did not make the delay in deposit of receipts, received bag-wise, of his own. It was done that way on account of directions in this regard, received from the then Assistant Regional Manager, on 31.12.2011 and 18.01.2012. The said Officer of the Corporation had instructed that when the load factor was low, bag-wise deposit be not made and the conductor concerned be required to speak to him. It was further directed that bag-wise deposit of receipts be made only in the event the load factor was 75%. It was explained that the delay in depositing the receipts was on account of these instructions and there was no culpability on the petitioner’s part.
4. The Assistant Regional Manager, who held inquiry into the charges, submitted an inquiry report dated 13.11.2014, holding the charges proved, and the petitioner guilty of negligence in the performance of his duties. The Regional Manager of the Corporation at Aligarh, without issuing a show-cause notice, passed an order dated 29.11.2014, holding the petitioner guilty of negligence. He imposed a punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,000/-from the petitioner, with a warning for the future. This order is one of the orders under challenge, the challenge being introduced through amendment. By an order dated 22.12.2014, the petitioner’s gratuity was calculated by the Corporation, determining it at a total sum of Rs. 6,39,178/-; but the sum of Rs. 8000/-ordered to be recovered from the petitioner was deducted from his gratuity. The order dated 22.12.2014, calculating the petitioner’s g
Point of law: doctrine of equality is a dynamic and evolving concept having many dimensions. The embodiment of the doctrine of equality can be found in Articles 14 to 18 contained in Part III of the ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that recovery from retiral dues after retirement is impermissible in certain situations, and the protection of pension and gratuity rights of re....
The recovery of excess amount due to mistake or wrong interpretation of rules cannot be made, and the benefit of promotion and consequential monetary benefits cannot be taken away without providing a....
The court established that recovery of excess payments from retired employees, particularly from lower service classes, is impermissible if it results in undue hardship, reinforcing the principles of....
Recovery of excess payments from Class-III employees is impermissible without misrepresentation, emphasizing the employer's responsibility for errors.
Recovery of excess payments from employees without their fault violates principles of equity and fairness, especially when recovery occurs post-retirement and after a significant period.
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.
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible if it causes undue hardship, as established in judicial precedents.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
