IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
SANJAY KUMAR, CJ., A. BIMOL SINGH, J.
The Principal Accountant General (A. & E.), Manipur - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kangabam Tomba Devi, W/o. (L.) Thounaojam Suren Singh and Ors. - Respondents
W.A. No. 121 of 2022 with MC(WA) No.201 of 2022 and W.A. No. 126 of 2022 with MC(WA) No.206 of 2022
Decided On : 16-12-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to previous judgment regarding benefit deductions. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments on legality of deductions and prior approvals. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis on legality and implications of deductions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. supreme court's guidance on employer recovery practices. (Para 15) |
| 5. dismissal of appeals due to lack of merit. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT :
(Sanjay Kumar, CJ.) :
[1] Judgment and Order dated 13.07.2022 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P(C) No.574 of 2021 is subjected to challenge in these two appeals. Writ Appeal No.121 of 2022 was filed by the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Manipur, respondent No.1 in the said writ petition; while Writ Appeal No.126 of 2022 was filed by the State of Manipur and the Director, Education (S), Government of Manipur, respondents No. 2 and 3 in the said writ petition. By the judgment and order under appeal, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to refund the deducted Gratuity and Dearness Relief, amounting to Rs.3,11,847/-, to the writ petitioner within a time frame. This relief was granted on the ground that the deductions made from her Gratuity and Dearness Relief accounts were illegal and unsustainable in law.
[2] Heard Mr. Samarjit S., learned Sr. PCCG, appearing for the appellant in WA No.121 of 2022; Ms. Ch.Sundari Devi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the appellants in WA No.126 of 2022; and Mr. Ch.Robinchandra Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in both the writ appeals, the writ petitioner.
[3] Smt. Kangabam Tomba Devi, respondent No.1 herein, was appointed as a Primary/Matriculate Teacher, vide order dated 15.06.1983 of the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. Therein, her salary was fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.470-15-575-EB-20-735-25-860/-per month, plus DA and other allowances admissible under the rules, with effect from 01.07.1983. Upon acquiring a higher qualification, her salary was increased by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, vide order dated 05.03.1992. Thereby, she was placed in the scale of pay of Rs.575-1050/-(pre-revised) with retrospective effect from 01.07.1983. Again, by order dated 08.11.2002, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, enhanced her scale of pay, pursuant to Government Notification dated 07.09.1999, and she was extended the Trained Graduate/Trained Primary Teacher scale of pay with effect from 07.09.1999. Her scale of pay at this stage was fixed as Rs.4500-7000/-. She was then given the enhanced Trained Senior scale upon completion of 12 years of regular service in the grade, vide order dated 17.11.2003 of the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. Her scale of pay was fixed as Rs.5000-8000/-with effect from 29.10.1999. The scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000/-was revised to Rs.9300-34,800/-plus grade pay of Rs.4200/-with effect from 01.01.2006, vide Notification dated 05.05.2010 of the Government of Manipur and her pay was fixed at Rs.11,540/-plus Rs.4200/-GP per month with effect from 01.01.2006.
[4] It may be noted that at the time the writ petitioner entered service, she was still an undergraduate being in B.A. 1st year. Thereafter, she acquired higher educational qualification and was granted higher scale of pay basing on her qualification. She attained the age of superannuation and retired from service with effect from 30.06.2010. Order dated 23.09.2010 was issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, in recognition of this fact. The office of the Senior Deputy Accountant General (A & E), Manipur, issued a Pension Payment Order stating that she would be entitled to receive Rs.6600/-per month as pension with effect from 01.07.2010. Therein, under the caption ‘Special Remarks of Accounts Officer’, it was noted that her Gratuity amount stood at Rs.2,40,570/-but recovery of overpayment of pay and allowances to the tune of Rs.3,11,847/-had to be effect
D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India
State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others
Recovery should not be made from the retired employees, and the grant of qualification scale, trained scale, and senior scale to the petitioner cannot be questioned and found fault by the respondent ....
Recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible when no fault or misrepresentation is established on their part.
The court established that qualifications obtained before a specified date must be recognized for pay scale determination, ensuring fairness in employment practices.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that entitlement to selection grade and special grade is subject to completion of requisite years of service, and recovery orders issued within one....
Withholding gratuity post-retirement without notice or opportunity to contest alleged incorrect pay fixation is impermissible and deemed harsh.
An employee need not wait for twelve months from the fixation of his/her pay in the new scale for earning in the revised scale.
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.