Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2468
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, J, MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, A
Des Raj – Appellant
Versus
D/o Public Health Engineering Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir – Respondent
O.A./619/2020
Mr. Ankit Kochchar, Mr. Dewakar Sharma, DAG & Mr. Sahil Koul
Recovery of excess payments from employees must consider hardship and cannot be retrospective if payments were made for an extended period.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Recovery of excess payment - Applicant sought to quash adverse entries in service book post-retirement without a hearing, and to release retiral benefits as per last drawn salary - Respondents argued recovery was justified due to auditing errors and prior notifications. (Paras 1-2, 4-5)
(B) Natural Justice - The court emphasized that actions taken without affording an opportunity to be heard are arbitrary and violate principles of natural justice. (Paras 13-14)
(C) Judicial Precedents - The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments establishing that recovery from employees must consider hardship and cannot be retrospective if payments were made for an extended period. (Paras 8-12)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, after retirement, faced adverse entries in his service book and withholding of retiral benefits due to alleged excess payments. He sought parity with other employees who received benefits without deductions.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found the respondents' actions arbitrary and in violation of natural justice, ordering the release of all retiral benefits based on the last drawn salary.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of adverse entries in the service book, the justification for withholding benefits, and the adherence to principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents' actions were arbitrary and illegal, emphasizing the need for adherence to natural justice and the protection of employees' rights against unjust recovery actions.
Result: Original Application allowed; impugned orders quashed.
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
i) Allow the instant application of the applicant and impose exemplary cost;
ii) Set-aside the adverse entries dated 'nil' ('at page no. of Annexure C') recorded in the service book of the applicant after his retirement and without affording any opportunity of being heard to the applicant;
iii) Set-aside the communications dated 13.02.19 and communication no. PNR-2/C-2/2019-20/1654-56 dated 'nil' issued by the Respondent no. 4 being illegal, arbitrary and untenable in law;
iv) Set-aside the order/communication dated 13.07.20 being illegal, arbitrary and untenable in law;
v) Direct the Respondents to release complete retiral benefits of the Applicant as per the last drawn salary; and vi) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicants and against the respondents.”
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: -
a) Vide order dated 30.7.07, benefits of the said SRO 59 of 1990 were granted to the applicant and he was placed under the higher pay scale at par with other employees and arrears from the year 1997.
b) The 3rd time bound promotion in the pay scale of 9300-34800 w.e.f 01.08.2008 and his pay scale was also fixed accordingly as mentioned in service book.
c) That in the year 2013, the pay of the applicant was re-fixed in terms of SRO 14 of 1996 read with SRO 311 of 1987 and all the benefits were granted to the applicant.
d) Applicant got retired and pension case of applicant sent to Respondent no.4.
e) Govt. order no. 277-F of 2018 dated 6.6.2018 was implemented in the PHE department vide order no. PHEJ/Acctts/2018-19/75 dated 12.10.18 issued by PHE department and Circular no PHEJ/GE/12082-114 dated 10.11.2018.
f) Respondent no. 4 issued Communications dated 13.2.19 and communication no. PNR-2/C- 2/2019-20/1654-56 dated 'nil' regarding recovery of the excess amount and implementation of Govt. order no. 277-F of 2018 dated 6.6.2018 and service benefits were withheld by the respondents herein and illegal entries were recorded in the applicant's service book.
g) After more than almost 2 years the Resp.no. 4 issued order /communication dated 13.07.20 wherein the Resp. no. 4 has illegally and unlawfully calculated monthly pension of Rs. 16,000/- without granting any opportunity to the applicant.
h) The respondent no. 4 vide its communication no. PNR-2/C- 2/2019-20/1654-56 dated 'nil' addressed to Respondent no. 3 further pointed out that in the pension case of the applicant herein, the excess payment of Rs. 19,98,838/- is kept on hold till the outcome of the case pending before the Hon'ble High Court and it is duty of the DDO concerned to recover the excess payment benefits and sought intimation regarding the same, so that action can be taken in the case of the applicant.
i) The benefits of SRO 59 of 1990 were granted to all the petitioners of Service Writ petition no. 1638/ 2002 in terms of the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court vide Judgment dated 03.2.07 and retiral / pensionary benefits are granted to all other petitioners named in SWP no. 1638/2002 except applicant herein. As such, the applicant is seeking parity and equality with other employees of the respondent no. 1 to 3 who are enjoying retiral benefits as per their last drawn salary and pay scale already fixed without any deductions.
3. Per contra, the respondents filed reply and vehemently argued that during auditing of service book by the O/O Pr. Accountant General (A&E) J&K Jammu's error in extension of benefit of 2nd in-situ promotion was pointed out. The due date for 2nd in-situ benefit was 8/99 while as it was extended in 07/99. The pay was refixed w.e.f. 07/99 to 07/05 vide AG (A&E) J&K Jammu's no. PNR- II/A&E/C- 3/20
