Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13350

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B ANAND, Member (A), RAJINDER S DOGRA, Member (J)
Tejinder Dutta – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
OA 1651/2022 | OA 244/2022 | OA 1332/2023 | OA 1316/2022 | OA 358/2021 | OA 1442/2022 | OA 1723/2023 | OA 1445/2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Adv with Mr. Farhan Mirza, Mr. K Nirmal Kotwal with Mr. Vikram Arora, Mr. Anil Khajuria, Mr. Karun Sharma
For the Respondents:Mr. Hunar Gupta , Deputy advocate General

Recovery of excess payments from Class III and IV employees is impermissible where such recoveries cause undue hardship, supporting equitable treatment under law.

Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Articles 14 & 16 - Service Matters - Recovery of excess payments from employees - The court stipulates that recovery from Class III and IV employees, especially when payments were improperly calculated and where such actions would cause undue hardship is impermissible under law. (Paras 9-12)

(B) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction of administrative authorities - Directions stipulated by the court binding upon government departments, and any failure to comply with court orders can attract legal repercussions. (Paras 14-15)

(C) Rights of Employees - Instances where recovery actions would breach principles embedded in equity and the welfare state concept must be considered carefully to avert injustice against employees receiving undue penalties for administrative failures. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The applicants, designated as Class-III-IV employees, sought relief against communications issued by the Jammu Power Distribution Corporation attempting to adjust improperly given pay scales, claiming violations of their rights under the Supreme Court judgments ensuring their entitlements (Paras 1-2).

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal ruled against the recoveries being pursued, emphasizing adherence to judicial directives and the inequity of the recovery process against employees (Paras 15).

Issues: Whether the actions of the respondents violated court orders by attempting recalibration of the applicants' pay scales post-judgment, along with authorization to avoid recovery proceedings (Paras 8-9).

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery actions directed against employees possessing no fault in the excess payment process are inequitable and harmful; the fairness of such recoveries is substantially overshadowed by the rights and welfare of employees. (Paras 10-11)

Result: The communications directing pay alterations were quashed, and respondents were ordered to issue refunds and adhere to precedent set by prior judgments in similar cases.

Table of Content
1. applicants sought quashment of communications affecting pay grades, asserting judicial violations and equitable rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. counsel argued for recognition of prior court judgments validating their pay scales and compliance mandates. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court outlined the principles of administrative law, ensuring employee rights concerning judgments and pay scales. (Para 6 , 7)
4. tribunal emphasized the inequities inherent in recovery actions against employees, endorsing equitable treatment in judicial mandates. (Para 8 , 9)
5. decision affirmed the applicants' claims, quashing unlawful communications and protecting their current pay grades. (Para 15)

ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder S Dogra, Member-J)

1. The present Original Applications have been filed by the applicants being aggrieved of the impugned communication bearing No.MD/JPDCL/Adm./141/ 1578 dated 24th September, 2022 issued by the Respondents.

2. Being aggrieved, the applicants have filed the present Original Applications, seeking the following reliefs: -

i. Quashment of impugned communication bearing No. MD/JPDCL/Adm./141/1578 dated 24th September, 2022 styled as 'Reminder-IV' read with communications of even number dated 16.06.2022, 02.07.2022, 22.07. 2022 and 07.09.2022 being in violation of the Judgment dated 10.01.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Javed Ahmed Khan and Ors. and being violative of Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India;

ii. Prohibition restraining the respondents to take any coercive steps in terms of communication impugned bearing No. MD/JPDCL/Adm./141/1578 dated 24th September, 2022;

iii. Mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to disturb/alter the pay grade of 220-430 (pre-revised) in favour of the petitioners as have been released in compliance to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India directions in favour of similarly situated persons;

3. After issuance of notices to respondents, they have filed a detailed reply.

4. Mr. Pranav Kohli, learned senior counsel for the applicants in OA 1651/2022 reiterated the ground taken by applicants in their OA and all other learned counsels for applicants Mr. Vikram Arora, Mr. Anil Khajuria and Mr. Karun Sharma in connected cases have adopted the same argument. The grounds taken by the applicants is as follows:

i. That the applicants came to be appointed as Technician- III and were given appointment pursuant to the Govt. Order issued by Power Development Department and were allocated the designations of various posts such as Switch Board Attendants (SBAs), Technicians, Meter Readers etc. in the erstwhile Power Development Department (Now Jammu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd.

ii. That similarly situated persons who were also denied the pay scale of 220-430 (pre-revised) approached the Hon'ble High Court of J&K and preferred a writ petition titled Subhash Chander and Ors. Vs State bearing SWP No. 2455/2001 which came to be decided vide judgement dated 26.02.2008. Hon’ble High Court in said petition has held as:-

“In this view of the position, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the pay scale of 220-430 (pre-revised) in favour of petitioners with effect from the date they were promoted as Meter Readers. They shall also be paid arrears, if any due, with all consequential. Connected CMP shall also stand disposed of. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.”

iii. That Power Development Department challenged the judgement dated 26.02.2008 by virtue of LPA bearing No. 142/2008. The Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 27.07.2009 dismissed the LPA and upheld the Judgement dated 26.02.2008.

iv. That in compliance to the aforesaid judgements having attained finality, the respondents vide Government Order No. 206-PDD of 2009 dated 13.10.2009 implemented the judgements and granted sanction to the release of pay scale of Rs. 220-430(pre-revised) w.e.f. the date they were promoted with all consequential benefi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13350

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALB ANAND, Member (A), RAJINDER S DOGRA, Member (J)Tejinder Dutta – AppellantVersusUnion Territory of Jammu and Kashmir – RespondentOA 1651/2022 | OA 244/2022 | OA 1332/2023 | OA 1316/2022 | OA 358/2021 | OA 1442/2022 | OA 1723/2023 | OA 1445/2022

Recovery of excess payments from Class III and IV employees is impermissible where such recoveries cause undue hardship, supporting equitable treatment under law.

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B ANAND, Member (A), RAJINDER S DOGRA, Member (J)
Tejinder Dutta – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
OA 1651/2022 | OA 244/2022 | OA 1332/2023 | OA 1316/2022 | OA 358/2021 | OA 1442/2022 | OA 1723/2023 | OA 1445/2022