Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1384
H, O, N, ', B, L, E, , M, R, ., , J, U, S, T, I, C, E, , A, B, H, A, Y, , S, ., , O, K, A, ,, , H, O, N, ', B, L, E, , M, R, ., , J, U, S, T, I, C, E, , U, J, J, A, L, , B, H, U, Y, A, N
DR. BALBIR SINGH BHANDARI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
C.A. No.-005933-005933 / 2023
10-01-2024 2024 INSC 29
MANAN VERMA
Recovery of benefits granted under a government order is justified if the order is found to be contrary to established guidelines, and no inequitable treatment is shown.
Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 - Section 86 - Recovery of personal/promotional pay scale - Appellants, Ayurvedic Medical Officers, challenged recovery of benefits granted under a government order which was later revoked - Court examined the binding nature of prior orders and the legality of recovery actions. (Paras 1, 10, 14)
(B) Administrative Law - Principles of natural justice - Recovery of benefits without a hearing deemed improper - Court emphasized the need for fair process in administrative actions. (Paras 6, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were granted a personal pay scale which was later revoked by the State Government, leading to recovery actions against them. They contended that the recovery was unjust, especially post-superannuation.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the State's decision to revoke the pay scale, stating it was contrary to finance department orders and did not constitute inequitable treatment.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the recovery of benefits and whether the appellants were entitled to the pay scale based on prior government orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the recovery was justified as the benefits were granted contrary to established finance department guidelines, and the appellants did not belong to a weaker section of society.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGEMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. The benefit of a personal/promotional pay scale was granted to the appellants by the State of Uttarakhand. The said benefit was withdrawn under a subsequent decision of the State of Uttarakhand. The narrow question is whether the Digitally signed by ASHISH KONDLE Date: 2024.01.10 16:45:59 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified benefits can be recovered from the appellants who have superannuated.
2. Few factual aspects need consideration. The undivided Government of Uttar Pradesh issued an order dated 16th June 1988 by which the appellants were appointed on an ad hoc basis in the State Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Service Cadre.
The appointments were expressly made for a period of one year or till the State Public Service Commission provides the duly selected candidates. A decision dated 5th February 1998 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh provided that any medical officer working on an ad hoc basis shall be considered for regularisation upon completing continuous and satisfactory service of 8 years. However, it was clarified that the benefit of personal payment should be approved only after their regularisation in service. It was specifically made clear that if any medical officer has completed 8 years of continuous service but has not been regularised, the benefit of the personal pay band will be admissible only after he is regularised. On 2nd December 2000, a decision was made by the government that officers/employees who completed continuous and satisfactory service of 8 years in the same post on or after 1st January 1996 shall be provided a salary increment in the revised pay band.
It was also decided that the officers who have been granted the aforesaid benefit and who have completed continuous and satisfactory service of 6 years from the date of getting the benefit of selection grade to a total of 14 years of continuous and satisfactory service shall be approved on the next pay-band or promotional post on a personal basis. It was clarified that the benefit be available to those who have been regularised on the concerned post.
3. The first respondent, by an office memorandum dated 27th January 2006, regularised the appellants' employment.
The appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court. The grievance was regarding the non-grant of the promotional pay scale. The writ petitions were disposed of by the order dated 3rd January 2011, directing the State Government to consider their claim for the grant of a promotional pay scale. On 8th March 2011, the first respondent – the State Government, granted approval for applying a new ACP (Assured Career Progression Scheme) in the revised pay structure from 1st January 2006 for the State Government employees. On 4th August 2011, the Chief Secretary of the State Government issued a communication to the Director General of Ayurvedic and Unani Services, which reads thus:
- “In the light of G.O. No.2178/71-2-2010- 519/2005 Dt. 18th June, 2010 of Govt. of U.P, Medical Education Section-2, I have been directed to say that with regard to G.O. No. 7468/71-2- 5/92 Dt. 5th February, 1998, the benefit of personal/promotional pay-scale (i.e. 08/14 years) shall be admissible to Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Officers and Medical Officers (Community Health) only after their regularization. It means that whenever concerned medical officer shall be regularized at that time while considering his entire satisfactory service on ad hoc basis to be regular, individual/promotional pay-scale shall be admissible upon completion of 08/14 years of service.” (emphasis added) 4. On 27th September 2011, in terms of the directions issued by the Chief Secretary, the Director of the Ayurvedic and Unani Services of the first respondent granted a time-bound pay band to the appellants in terms of the order dated 4th August 2011.
- As some of the appellants were not given the benefit of the order dated 4th August 2011, they filed a writ petition
