Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 1301/2025 and CM APPLs. 6465-6466/2025
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Sr.
Panel Counsel
Through:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT
03.02.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. By the following order dated 19 January 2018, issued by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, the pay of the respondent, who was serving as Senior Section Engineer, and was due to retire 12 days thereafter on 31 January 2018 was downwardly refixed with effect from 27 December 2007: “Northern Railway L.No-726-E/16/1396/P-4 DRM Office Dated: 19.01.18 New Delhi ADEN/Hort/NDLS Sub: - Revised pay flxation of Sh. Randhir Singh S/o Sh. Surta Singh SSE/Hort/DKZ retiring on 31.1.18 Ref: - DFM/NDLSL. No DFM/DII/Pension/MISC dt 17.1.18 Sh. Randhir Singh S/o Sh. Surta Singh SSE/Hort/DKZ retiring on 31.1.18. His pay was wrongly fixed w.e.f 27.12.07 after making the necessary rectification his pay is being revised in the following manner: Grade From Pay Earlier Drawn (₹) Pay now revised (₹) 9300- 34800+4200 01.07.07 14930 14930 9300- 34800+4600 27.12.07. 16690 15780 01.07.08 17190 16260 01.07.09 17710 16750 01.07.10 18250 17260 01.07.11 18800 17780 01.07.12 19370 18320 01.07.13 19960 18870 01.07.14 20560 19440 01.07.15 21180 20030 As per 7th CPC 01.01.16 55200 52000 01.07.16 56900 53600 01.07.17 58600 55200 Please make the necessary recovery under advised to Settlement Section P-13 directly. Sd/- For. Divl. Personal Officer New Delhi”
2. It is an acknowledged position that no show cause notice was issued to the respondent prior to the issuance of the aforesaid order.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the moved Central Administrative Tribunal[1] by way of OA 4691/2018[2].
4. The Tribunal has, by judgment dated 11 September 2024, under challenge herein, allowed the OA and has quashed the decision to refix the respondent’s pay as well as to effect recovery from him.
5. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Railways have approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.
6. We have heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioner.
7. In our view, the judgment of the Tribunal is unexceptionable.
8. There can be no downward refixation of pay of a government servant without notice to him, even if it is by way of correction of an error which had occurred in the past. This position is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court has, in Bhagwan Shukla v UOI[3], exposited the law thus:
“the Tribunal” hereinafter Randhir Singh v UOI been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the (sic employee) concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25-7-1991, which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17-9-1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25-7-1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant from Rs 190 to Rs 181 w.e.f. 18-12-1970.” (Emphasis supplied)
9. Moreover, in the present case, the error that was being sought to be corrected was of 11 years’ vintage. If the petitioner had continued with the error for 11 years, the least that was expected was a notice to the respondent before the error was corrected and his pay was downwardly refixed.
10. We, therefore do not find any cause to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal in so far as it sets aside the petitioner’s decision to refix the respondent’s pay.
11. On the aspect of recovery, the case is squarely covered by para 18 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Rafiq Masih[4], specifically clauses (ii) and (iii) thereof. Para 18 of Rafiq Masih reads:
of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala[5] and Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar[6] reiterate Jagdish Singh.
12. Clause (ii), in para 18 of Rafiq Masih, proscribes recovery from persons who have less than a year left to retire. Admittedly, the petitioner was due to retire within 12 days after the passing of the order of recovery. The only caveat to the applicability of clause (ii) in para 18 of Rafiq Masih is to be found in paras 9 and 11 of High Court of Punjab & Haryana v Jagdev Singh[7], which read: AIR 2022 SC 2153 AIR 2024 SC 3950
13. It is nobody’s case that, at the time when the pay of the respondent was allegedly erroneously fixed, he subscribed to any undertaking consenting to recovery at a later point of time, or was placed on notice that he would be bound to refund any amount which was later found to have been paid in excess.
14. The recovery from the respondent was, therefore, clearly impermissible in view of clause (ii) in para 18 of Rafiq Masih.
15. The recovery from the respondent would also be interdicted by clause (iii) in para 18 of Rafiq Masih, which proscribes recovery more than five years after the excess pay was made to the officer. In the present case, recovery was sought to be made more than 11 years after the allegedly excess payment was made.
16. There is no caveat, in any later decision, to the applicability of clause (iii) in para 18 of Rafiq Masih, except for the general caveat, in Thomas Daniel, that Rafiq Masih would not apply where the officer was guilty of fraud or misstatement in securing higher payment, or accepted higher payment with full knowledge of the fact that he was not entitled to it.
17. The recovery made from the respondent in the present case was, therefore, rightly quashed by the Tribunal.
18. We, therefore, find no cause to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal which, therefore, stands affirmed.
19. The writ petition stands dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.