Jharkhand High Court: In a petition filed to quash the orders issued by the respondent authorities, whereby the petitioner’s pay scale was reduced, Sanjay Prasad, J., stated that there was no misrepresentation or suppression on the petitioner’s part to get the said pay scale and it was only due to lapses on the part of the authorities of the State Government this situation arose. The Court noted that the petitioner agreed to pay due amount of Rs. 6,28,557 in instalments on 30-12-2016 itself, i.e. just ten months before his retirement on 31-10-2019. However, this undertaking given on behalf of the petitioner was completely under coercion and threat. The Court stated that recovery of excess amount from the employee was not permissible, if there was no misrepresentation or suppression by the petitioner.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned letters dated 17-11-2016 and 02-12-2016 issued by the respondent authorities. Further, the respondents were directed to grant pay scale of Rs.9,300-34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200 to the petitioner and the department was further directed to release the amount recovered from the petitioner.
Background
The petitioner was appointed as Draftsmen Category-II on 22-11-1987, and a scale was fixed vide Memo dated 29-03-2003. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted promotion to Draftsmen Category-I with effect from 01-10-1997 and his pay scale was revised to Rs.5,000-8,000 vide letter dated 23-08-2005. Then, he was granted the benefit of Sixth Pay Revision Committee, in the pay scale of Rs. 9,300-34,800 plus Grade Pay Rs. 4200 vide statement of fixation dated 19-03-2009.
However, suddenly vide letter dated 17-11-2016, the Chief Engineer informed the Executive Engineer that the petitioner was granted Grade Pay Rs. 4200, wrongly as he did not have the Diploma in Engineering, and as such he would be entitled to Grade pay of Rs. 2800 with effect from 01-01-1996. Likewise, the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000 was reduced to Rs. 4,000-6,000 as the petitioner did not have the Diploma in Engineering. The petitioner stated that on the same day, another letter dated 02-12-2016 was issued, by which it was informed that the petitioner’s pay scale was fixed as Rs.5200-20200 and Grade Pay of Rs.2800 with effect from 01-01-2006 which was also wrong, illegal and arbitrary.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that from the perusal of the records, it appeared that during the entire service period, nothing adverse was found against the petitioner and when he was about to retire, then suddenly, the respondent issued a letter dated 17-11-2016, informing that the petitioner had been wrongly granted the grade pay of Rs. 4200. Thus, it was clear that the steps for recovery for the excess payment from the salary and upcoming retiral dues of the petitioner were being taken on almost fag end of his service.
The Court stated that there was no misrepresentation or suppression on the petitioner’s part to get the said pay scale and it was only due to lapses on the part of the authorities of the State Government this situation arose. Further, during the period when petitioner was given promotion, there was neither misrepresentation nor any suppression of fact, as the service book of the petitioner was available with the respondent authorities at the time of granting all such scale.
The Court noted that the petitioner agreed to pay the due amount of Rs. 6,28,557 in instalments on 30-12-2016 itself, i.e. just ten months before his retirement on 31-10-2019. However, this undertaking given on behalf of the petitioner was completely under coercion and threat. The Court stated that it was well settled that the employer stands on higher pedestal in comparison to an employee and the representation given by the petitioner to recover the dues amount of Rs. 6,28,557 in instalments was clearly under coercion and threat for non-fixation of pension and other retiral benefits and it was against the public policy.
The Court stated that recovery of excess amount from the employee was not permissible, if there was no misrepresentation or suppression by the petitioner. It would be extremely iniquitous and arbitrary to seek refund of the payments mistakenly made to the employee. In the present case, there was neither any suppression nor misrepresentation on behalf of petitioner. Therefore, considering the mistakes committed by the department, excess payment was made to the petitioner and which could not be permitted to be recovered at this stage.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned letters dated 17-11-2016 and 02-12-2016 issued by the respondent authorities. Further, the respondents were directed to grant pay scale of Rs.9,300-34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200 to the petitioner and the department was further directed to release the amount recovered from the petitioner.
[Binod Kumar Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, W.P. (S) No. 4884 of 2017, decided on 02-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Pankaj Kumar, Advocate; Pranav Prakash Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Apurva Singh, A.C to S.C(Mines); Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate.
The post appeared first on .