SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 316

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGHAL – APPELLANT
VERSUS
PRAMUKH SACHIV IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT & OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5262 OF 2008
Decided On : 17.04.2014

Headnote:Service Law – Incorrect fixation of salary of appellant ,an Assistant Engineer – Refixation of salary by respondent employer – On the basis of re – fixed salary a sum of Rs.99,522/ – was sought to be recovered from appellant – In pursuance of the incorrect fixation of appellant’s salary in 1986, his salary at the time of his retirement also reduced from Rs.11625/ – to Rs.10,975/ – and pension also reduced – Writ petition – Dismissed by High Court – Appeal – Held by virtue of G.O. dated 16.1.2007, mistake committed in pay fixation beyond period of 34 months prior to retirement of appellant could not have been taken into account by respondent employer and hence, neither any recovery could have been sought by respondents nor there could have been any reduction in the pension on the basis of reduction of salary – Admittedly, if any mistake had been committed in pay fixation, the mistake had been committed in 1986, much prior to the retirement of the appellant – Hence by virtue of said G.O. dated 16.1. 2007, neither any salary paid by mistake to appellant could have been recovered nor pension of appellant could have been reduced – High Court held not correct while permitting respondent authorities to reduce pension payable to appellant by not setting aside the order whereby excess amount of salary paid to appellant was sought to be recovered – Impugned judgment passed by High Court quashed – Appeal disposed of (paras7to12)

       Facts of the Case

       Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in Writ Petition by the High Court, this appeal has been filed by the appellant – employee, from whom excess amount of salary, which had been paid by mistake is sought to be recovered and whose pension is also sought to be reduced.

       Findings of the Court

       Admittedly, if any mistake had been committed in pay fixation, the mistake had been committed in 1986, much prior to the retirement of the appellant .Hence by virtue of said G.O. dated 16.1. 2007, neither any salary paid by mistake to appellant could have been recovered nor pension of appellant could have been reduced. High Court held not correct while permitting respondent authorities to reduce pension payable to appellant by not setting aside the order whereby excess amount of salary paid to appellant was sought to be recovered. Impugned judgment passed by High Court was quashed. Appeal was disposed of.

       Result – Appeal disposed of

JUDGMENT

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.95 of 2005 by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital on 14th November, 2006, this appeal has been filed by the appellant – employee, from whom excess amount of salary, which had been paid by mistake is sought to be recovered and whose pension is also sought to be reduced.

2. The appellant retired on 31st December, 2003 as an Assistant Engineer and on the basis of his last salary drawn, his pension had been fixed. At the time of his retirement, his salary was Rs.11,625/ – and on the basis of the said salary, his pension had been fixed.

3. After a few years of his retirement, it was found by the respondent – employer that salary of the appellant had been wrongly fixed in 1986 and therefore, his salary had been re – fixed by an order dated 23.03.2005. On the basis of the re – fixed salary a sum of Rs.99,522/ – was sought to be recovered and for that purpose a notice had been issued to the appellant on 23.04.2005. In pursuance of the incorrect fixation of his salary in 1986, his salary at the time of his retirement had also been reduced from Rs.11625/ – to Rs.10,975/ – and therefore, his pension had also been reduced.

4. The aforestated action of the respondent – employer had been challenged by the appellant by filing the aforestated Writ Petition before the High Court. The High Court was pleased to reject the petition as it had come to the conclusion that the pay of the appellant had been wrongly fixed and therefore, the impugned action of the respondent – employer with regard to recovery of the excess salary paid and reduction in the pension was justified.

5. It had been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant employee that the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court is incorrect for the reason that the High Court did not consider the G.O. dated 16.1.2007 bearing No.S – 3 – 35/10 – 07 – 101(6)/2005 which reads as under:

“[1]. Pension Fixation Authority shall inquire into emoluments of only last 10 months prior to retirement and for that examine the records of only two years prior thereto i.e. only the records of 34 months would be examined for the purpose of grant of pension, as has been provided in the aforesaid Government order dated 13.12.1977.

[2]. Pension Allowing Authority shall not be entitled to correct the mistake in determining the pay during service tenure beyond the period prescribed in para (1) above. Mistakes in pay determination of an employee can be effectively removed through the process of general inquiry/audit only when the employee is still in service.”

6. It had been submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant had retired on 31st December, 2003 and somewhere in the month of March, 2005 it was revealed that a mistake had been committed while fixing pay of the appellant in 1986. It had been further submitted that by virtue of the aforestated G.O. dated 16th January, 2007, the mistake committed in pay fixation beyond period of 34 months prior to retirement of the appellant could not have been taken into account by the respondent employer and therefore, neither any recovery could have been sought by the respondents nor there could have been any reduction in the pension on the basis of reduction of salary.

7. Upon perusal of the aforestated G.O. and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it is not in dispute that the appellant had retired on 31st December, 2003 and at the time of his retirement his salary was Rs.11,625/ – and on the basis of the said salary his pension had been fixed as Rs.9000/ – . Admittedly, if any mistake had been committed in pay fixation, the mistake had been committed in 1986, i.e. much prior to the retirement of the appellant and therefore, by virtue of the aforestated G.O. dated 16th January, 2007, neither any salary paid by mistake to the appellant could have been recovered nor pension of the appellant could have been reduced.

8. The lear




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top