J U D G M E N T

(D.Krishnakumar, J.)

Aggrieved by the order passed by the writ court in W.P.No. 12410 of

2021, dated 26.02.2024, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant.

Brief facts:

2. The respondent/writ petitioner is an Ex-service man, was discharged from the Indian Air Force on 30.06.2000. Thereafter, he joined as Customer Relationship Associate in the appellant-bank on a basic pay of Rs.5200/- per month and retired from service on 30.04.2021. The appellant Bank has issued order on 23.03.2021 i.e before one month of his retirement, revising the pay fixation of the respondent from Rs.8400/- to Rs.7000/- w.e.f 03.03.2008. According to the appellant-bank, the said revision of pay th fixation was in accordance with the 9 Bipartite Settlement. Challenging the said order of the appellant-Bank, the respondent has filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No. 12410 of 2021. This Court by order dated 26.02.2024 allowed the said writ petition and directed the appellant-Bank to refund the recovery that has been so far made from the petitioner. Aggreived by the said order of the writ court, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant-Bank.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ court has allowed the writ petition solely on the basis of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others -Vs- Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 observing that any excess payment made to the petitioner cannot be recovered before one month to the date of his retirement.The Learned Single Judge failed to consider that the respondent's salary, at the time of re-employment, was higher than that of the employees covered under the said decision. Furthermore, the respondent's claim for revised pay fixation and protection of his pre- retirement pay was not in line with the rules and guidelines issued by the Government of India. It is submitted that the appellant Bank had rightly recovered the excess payment made to the respondent based on the 9th Bipartite Settlement and in accordance with the applicable guidelines. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the respondent’s pay fixation was carried out in line with the directions of the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) and based on the 9th Bipartite Settlement regarding the re-employment of ex-servicemen. The revised fitment on 23.03.2021 was the result of a clarification from IBA regarding ex- servicemen who retired after 01.01.2006. Despite this, the respondent did not implead IBA or the Ministry of Defence, both of which are necessary parties to the case. Therefore, the order passed by the appellant Bank to recover of excess pay from the respondent is in accordance with the applicable guidelines issued by the Government of India and therefore the impugned order passed by the writ Court directing the appellant Bank to refund the recover amount to the respondent is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.

5. It is the contention of the respondent before the writ court that the appellant Bank has passed recovery order dated 23.03.2021 unilaterally reducing the respondent’s basic pay from Rs.8400 to Rs.7000 w.e.f 2008 from the date of his appointment and deducted a sum of Rs.58216.66 from March 2021, after having credited Rs.5,60,379.44/-, wrongly deducted Rs.5,98,406.68 in April 2021 salary and Rs.58205.03 from the respondent’s retirement benefits paid in May 2021. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the respondent being a Class III award staff, the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others -Vs- Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 squarely applies to the case of the respondent. The writ Court has rightly considered the above aspects and directed the appellant Bank to refund the amount recovered from the respondent. Therefore, the order of the writ court is perfectly valid and does not require any interference