Satish Kumar Malik v. Union of India and Ors.

1. Sometime in March, 2019, the petitioner came to know that the respondents had decided to recover a sum of Rs.53,656/- from his salary for the wrongful compensation paid to him during the years 2015 and

2016. In fact, initially a deduction of Rs.5,366/- was made from his salary for the month of March, 2019, but from August, 2019 onwards the respondents started regularly deducting a sum of Rs.2,415/- from the monthly salary of the petitioner.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner sent representations dated 23.04.2019, 09.05.2019 and 02.06.2019 before the Competent Authority i.e. Assistant Security Commissioner-respondent no.3 herein praying for stoppage of recovery from his monthly salary. Receiving no response from the respondents, the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents for refund of the amount deducted from his salary from March, 2019 onwards and also calling upon them not to make any further deductions from his salary.

3. In view of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in making a recovery from the salary of the petitioner is not only unfair and arbitrary but is also in complete variance with the settled legal position qua making recoveries from the salaries of Government Employees. She submits that the respondents neither issued any show-cause notice nor sent any communication to the petitioner before starting such deduction from his monthly salary.

4. Learned counsel further submits that even though the petitioner was in the category of medically de-categorized personnel waiting for absorption in the alternative post, he had still worked on several Saturdays, Sundays and Gazetted Holidays (hereinafter referred to as „Holidays‟) in the years 2015 and 2016 and therefore, in light of the relevant rules, he was entitled to receive cash compensation for the same and the same was duly paid to him and thus, in light of this position, the recovery being made from his salary is not legally tenable. To substantiate the said proposition, she places reliance upon State of Punjab & Others vs Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein the law relating to recovery to be made from the salary of an employee has been well summarized. In light of the observations made in the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel submits that since the petitioner is a Group-C employee, therefore, any recovery made from his salary is impermissible in law.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the recovery of compensation paid to the petitioner for the work done on holidays is fair and lawful. He places reliance upon two Railway Board Letter‟s No.2002/Sec(E)/AL-2/1/De-Categorized Staff dated 16.05.2006 and 05.09.2006 wherein it has been stipulated that the medically decategorized staff of RPF/RPSF are entitled for Ration Money and Washing Allowance only till such time they are absorbed in alternate non- RPF/RPSF categories in other departments of the Railways and are clearly not entitled for cash compensation for work done on holidays as claimed by the petitioner herein. He further submits that the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Northern Railways, Delhi Division, New Delhi vide its Inspection Report dated 26.04.2017 found that despite the petitioner being medically de-categorized, he was erroneously paid cash compensation of Rs.53,656/-for the years 2015 and 2016 and it is this amount, that the respondents have started deducting in a phased manner from the monthly salary of the petitioner.

6. This Court upon perusal of the documents on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties as also after going through the judgments cited by them finds that the present case of the petitioner, who is, admittedly, a Group-C employee with the RPF is involving recovery of an amount of Rs.53,656/- from his salary as the respondents claim that the same was wrongly paid to the petitioner.

7. Without dwelling into the factual aspects, this Court in view of the settled law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others (supra) while dealing with a similarly situated bunch of persons who were similarly given monetary benefits in excess of their entitlement consequent upon the mistake committed by the concerned Competent Authority therein in determining the actual emolument(s) payable to them, after taking into consideration earlier pronouncements also rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court involving the same issue, held as under: