Recovery of excess salary after retirement is impermissible unless caused by employee misconduct; employed principles from prior Apex Court rulings.

JUDGMENT

Since a common issue involved in these cases, they were heard and disposed of by a common judgment.

W.P,(C) No.14743 of 2020

2. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent Coir Board as a Co-operative Inspector on 28.10.1983 and retired on superannuation from the services of the Coir Board as Senior Accounts Officer on 31.05.2019. There occurred two vacancies of Accounts Manager in the respondent Coir Board. The petitioner along with one Sri.Ajithkumar were considered for promotion by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) as per Ext.P1. The petitioner would contend that the post of Co- operative Inspector was not in the zone of consideration for the post of Accounts Manager as per the then existing recruitment rules, but the petitioner, who was working as Co-operative Inspector was considered for promotion on the basis of the decision of the Board in its meeting held on 12.07.1991. The DPC considered staff with requisite qualification and experience for promotion to the post of Accounts Manager with higher scale of pay, even though those posts are not included in the feeder category. On the basis of recommendations in Ext.P1, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Accounts Manager with effect from 07.02.1994, on adhoc basis as per Ext.P2. On the basis of Ext.P2, the petitioner continued in the post of Accounts Manager from 07.02.1994 to 19.11.2004 for almost 10 years, without any break and has drawn salary for the post of Accounts Manager. Later the respondent Board revised the bye-laws by including the post of Co-operative Inspector as a feeder category post to the promotional post of Section Officer, whereby the post of Co- operative Inspector is treated as a feeder category for promotion to the post of Section Officer. Though the said amendment was passed on 1993, it was published only on 1997. The petitioner would submit that some of the employees challenged the amendment carried out in the bye-laws filing an original petition, so far as it includes the Co-operative Inspector as a feeder category for promotion to the post of Section Officer. After considering rival contentions on both sides in the Original Petition, in which the petitioners in these writ petitions were arrayed as respondent Nos.3 and 4, this Court held in Ext.P5 judgment that the petitioners need not be much apprehensive because they are admittedly working in a higher category than that of Section Officer, as Accounts Mangers and that they are continuing for more than 7 and 6 years respectively and they are allowed to continue in the post of Accounts Manager as they are qualified for the post. While so, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Co-operative Inspector as per Ext.P6 order dated 19.11.2004. On the very same day itself, as per Ext.P7, the respondent Board promoted the petitioner to the post of Section Officer. Since there is no difference in the scale of pay in the promoted post and in the officiating post, the petitioner continued to draw the same pay scale from the date of promotion onwards. Later, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer and he was again promoted to the post of Senior Accounts Officer as per Ext.P8. Subsequent to the promotion, the pay of the petitioner was fixed as per Ext.P9 and enjoyed the benefits of the fixation of the pay till he retired from the service on superannuation on 31.05