Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 8190
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
S Sujatha, J, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, A
Shri S.Stephen – Appellant
Versus
Railway Board – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00376/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri P.A.Kulkarni
For the Respondents: Shri Vishnu Bhat
Retrospective office order revising incentives is substantive amendment, not clarificatory; recovery from faultless serving employees unjustified.
Headnote:The applicants, Chemical and Metallurgical Superintendents, received incentive bonus under the 1989 Group Incentive Scheme until 2010, when administration revised it to 15% flat rate with retrospective effect from 01.06.2009 post-6th Pay Commission merger of grades, leading to recovery orders. Court examined whether retrospective revision and recovery from serving employees without fault is justifiable, relying on S.19 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Findings: Retrospective application imposes unanticipated burden, not clarificatory but substantive amendment. Issues framed: Justifiability of recovery based on retrospective office order dated 27.11.2010 from 01.06.2009. Ratio: Office order partakes substantial amendment withdrawing anticipated Group Incentive benefits; merger unanticipated; administration initially sought waiver (paras 6-10). Clarificatory provisions retrospective only if clearing omission, not saddling burden (citing Apex Court precedents). Orders quashed; recovery set aside and refunded within 8 weeks; prospective implementation permitted. Not precedent.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants received group incentive until retrospective revision. (Para 2) |
| 2. parties argue eligibility and inadvertent overpayment recovery. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. issue: justifiability of retrospective recovery from serving employees. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. office order substantive, not clarificatory; no retrospective effect. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. quash recovery orders; refund overpayments prospectively applicable. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
ORDER (ORAL)
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
The applicants have filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
“a). Quash/set aside the orders bearing No.: RWF/NG- 7/807, dated 02.09.2022, Annexure-A1, passed by Principal Chief Personnel Officer, RWF Yelahanka Bengaluru R-4 herein, bearing No.2009/M(PU)1/40, dated: 12.07.2022, Annexure A2 passed by Director Mech. Engineering (PU) Railway Board New Delhi R-2 herein and bearing No.RWF/NG-7/807 dated 04.08.2022, Annexure-A6, passed by Principal Chief Personnel Officer RWF Yelahanka BG Respondent No.4 herein.
b) Pass any other order or direction including return of the recovered amount from the applicants.”
2. The facts in brief as narrated by the applicants are that they are working as Chemical and Metallurgical Superintendents (CMS) (in Group ‘C’ category) in the Laboratory of Rail Wheel Factory, Yelahanka and directly connected with quality management of the material used for production of the Wheels and Axle. The applicants are the beneficiaries of the Railway Board’s order dated 29.12.1989, whereby the Railway Board introduced new incentive scheme in Rail Wheel Factory, Yelahanka. The applicants were in receipt of incentive bonus paid under the Group Incentive Scheme in the year 1990 in the Rail Wheel Factory, Yelahanka. As per the said incentive scheme, the entitled bonus was being paid to the applicants in proportion to each one of their gate attendance hours, excluding over time to scheduled working hours in each month. With the implementation of recommendation on 5th Pay Commission, the Chargeman ‘A’ (redesignated as JE) are in the grade pay of Rs.4,200/- whereas Lab Superintendent (redesignated as CMS) are in grade pay of Rs.4600/- attached to the scale of Senior Section Engineer. The administration opined that since the group incentive is paid only up to JE, CMS, the applicants who are in higher grade pay, are not eligible for the same and they are only entitled for grant of incentive at the rate of 15% of the basic pay. However, administration extended group incentive only as per the scheme introduced by the Railway Board on 29.12.1989 until the issue of office order dated 27.11.2010 ordering only payment of incentive bonus at the rate of 15% of basic pay on par with Senior Section Engineers with retrospective effect from 01.06.2009. It is the contention of the applicants that incentive bonus under Group Incentive Scheme received by them from the administration until issuance of RWF office order dated 27.11.2010 is directly attributable to the administration itself and the applicants are in no way responsible for the same. RWF administration itself approached the Railway Board seeking approval to write off the payments made to the applicants. However, Respondent No.4 has now ordered recovery of bonus paid under Group Incentive Scheme to the applicants herein commencing from August, 2022 salary in 10 equal instalments, classifying the said amount as over payment in so far as the applicants-1 to 11 are concerned. However, in respect of applicant No.12 a sum of Rs.17,177 has been recovered already stating it as an over payment made to him. Being aggrieved, the applicants have preferred this OA.
3. Learned Counsel Shri P.A.Kulkarni representing the applicants submitted that the Railway Administration itself in terms of Rail India Technical and Economic Service (RITES) report, has extended the benefit of incentive scheme notified by the Railway Board on 29.12.1989 to
