Back
2024 Supreme(All) 1186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Munni Devi – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8981 of 2023
Decided On : 11-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Awadh Behari Singh.
IMPORTANT POINT
Recovery of excess payments from lower-rung employees is deemed iniquitous and arbitrary, especially post-retirement.
Headnote:
Pension - Employee Rights - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and relevant government orders regarding salary revisions and pension entitlements, concluding that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of excess deductions but not to arrears or family pension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed arrears of salary and family pension for her deceased husband, a retired employee of the DRDA, following a government order that revised pay scales but deferred arrears. The DRDA was merged with the Department of Rural Development, complicating pension entitlements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of excess salary deductions made from her husband's CPF but denied claims for arrears of salary and family pension due to the timing of the merger and the lack of a formal challenge to the relevant government orders.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary from 1.1.2006, a refund of excess deductions from CPF, and family pension after the merger of the DRDA with the Department of Rural Development.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that recovery of excess payments from lower-rung employees is iniquitous and arbitrary, and that the petitioner’s husband, having retired before the merger, was not entitled to family pension or arrears of salary.
Result: The writ petition is allowed in part; the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 70,212 but not to arrears or family pension.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
1. The petitioner, Smt. Munni Devi's deceased husband, Malkhan Singh, was a Class-IV employee with the District Rural Development Agency (for short, 'the DRDA') and last posted under the Project Director, DRDA, Budaun. He carried the designation of a Patra Vahak. He retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2012. Admittedly, the DRDA was a registered society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short, 'the Act of 1860'). The DRDA was established under the aegis of the Government of India and the State Government as a professional agency to implement and carry out poverty alleviation schemes and programmes of the Ministry of Rural Development. The DRDA, no doubt, was a society entirely controlled and managed by the State with funds shared between the Government of India and the State Government in the percentage of 75 and 25. It would function under the control of the Zila Parishad and in the absence of the Zila Parishad, under the control of the District Magistrate. Later on, the control of the society passed on to the Chief Development Officer of the district, who would function as its ex officio President.
2. Though, entirely an enterprise of the State, but in character being a society essentially, registered under the Act of 1860, no rules were framed governing service conditions of its employees. These were, therefore, governed by a circular issued by the State Government on 17.3.1994.
3. According to the petitioner, salaries of the employees of the DRDA were revised in terms of the Sixth Pay Commission vide Government Order dated 29.7.2010 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the said Government Order granted revised pay scales with effect from 29.7.2010, but regarding the entitlement of arrears from 1.1.2006 to 28.7.2010, the decision was deferred to a later date.
4. The first count of the petitioner's claim in the present petition is that arrears of her husband's salary, to which she is now entitled, have not been revised with effect from 1.1.2006, but 28.7.2010. She is entitled to the said arrears, which have been denied to her without assignment of reason.
5. It is the petitioner's case regarding this part of her claim in the writ petition that the Government Order dated 29.7.2010 made provision for revised pay with effect from 1.1.2006, but the benefit thereof has been granted with effect from 29.7.2010. In short, the petitioner claims arrears due to her husband on account of pay revision in terms of the Government Order dated 29.7.2010. In a slightly discordant stand, it is then said by the petitioner that the Government Order dated 29.7.2010 had made provision about a decision regarding payment of arrears to be separately made, and by a separate order dated 4.5.2011, an illegal, unjust and improper decision was taken by the Government not to pay arrears on account of the aforesaid revision with effect from 1.1.2006. Still later, the State Government took a decision to merge the DRDA with the Department of Rural Development vide Government Order dated 18.7.2016.
6. The petitioner's case further is that while alive, her husband made repeated representations to the respondents to pay arrears of his revised pay, pension and to refund the sum of money deducted from his contributory provident fund (for short, 'the CPF') illegally. It appears that the direction regarding refund sought in his representations by the petitioner's husband while alive was with regard to arrears of revised pay/emoluments that were given to him under the Government Order dated 29.7.2010, construing it in the manner that the entitlement to receive arrears in terms of the said order was there. Later on, since the said entitlement to arrears was negatived by the State Government, payment of arrears made with effect from 1.1.2006, understanding the Government Order dated 29.7.2010 that way, were directed to be recovered. These were in fact recovered from the
