Four retired executives challenged Recovery Notices seeking refunds of Stagnation Increments violating 1998 Office Memorandum, arguing retirement and prior bond barred recovery under Rafiq Masih; Court held recovery permissible for senior executives.
Petitions dismissed and interim orders vacated; recovery notices upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: February 06, 2018
(i) + W.P.(C) 6590/2016 & C.M. 27062/2016 (ii) + W.P.(C) 760/2017 & C.M. 3503/2017 (iii) + W.P.(C) 762/2017 & C.M. 3509/2017 (iv) + W.P.(C) 790/2017 & C.M. 3665/2017
P.K.BAJPAI BOTHA PRASAD RAO I T N VEERARAGHAVAN R.KRISHAN ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Versus
UOI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sarat Chandra & Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advocates for respondent No.1-UOI in W.P.(C) 6590/2016 Mr. Kavindra Gill, Mr. J.C. Ranjan & Ms. Shashi Ranjan, Advocates for respondent No.1 in W.P.(C) 760/2017; 762/2017 & 790/2017
Mr. Satyawan Shekhawat & Mr. Saurav Agarwal, Advocates for respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Page 1 of 6
W.P.(C) 6590/2016 & connected petitions
Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) has been called upon by Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Heavy Industry, Government of India, to recover the excess amount paid to petitioners in contravention of DPE Guidelines pertaining to Stagnation Increment while finalizing the fixation of pay, terms and conditions of the Board level executives in BHEL. In pursuance to the aforesaid order of 1st August, 2014 (Annexure P-5) , Recovery Notices of 1st July, 2016 have been issued to petitioners, which are impugned in these petitions.
W.P.(C) 6590/2016 & connected petitions
Page 2 of 6
benefits accruing upon grant of Stagnation Increments to petitioners is premised on Office Memorandum of 22nd July, 1998 (Annexure R1/2) which clearly provides that one Stagnation Increment on completion of every two years at maximum of the respective scales is to be granted. The appointment letters of petitioners clearly stipulate that their service conditions would be governed by relevant Rules and Instructions of the CPSE/ Government.
Page 3 of 6
W.P.(C) 6590/2016 & connected petitions
modified and so, no recoveries can be initiated. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned Office Memorandums and Recovery Notices deserve to be set aside, as belated recovery now sought to be made is quite harsh, inequitable and for no fault of petitioners, they are being penalized.
Page 4 of 6
W.P.(C) 6590/2016 & connected petitions
of 22nd July, 1998 (Annexure R1/2) . It is pertinent to note that petitioners have already furnished a bond prior to their retirement that they would make good the excess payment received by them in respect of Stagnation Increments in question. Reliance placed upon Supreme Court’s decision in Rafiq Masih (Supra) is of no avail to the case of petitioners because the said decision has been rendered in the context of Class III and IV employees. It is pertinent to note that petitioners are Board level Executives and so, they cannot be treated at par with Class-III and IV employees. Impugned recovery can neither be said to be harsh or arbitrary, nor there is any equity in favour of petitioners, as Supreme Court while dealing with the case of teachers in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (Supra) has categorically ruled that any amount paid / received without authority of law is always recoverable. The plea of mistake of authorities and there being no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of employees, was held to be untenable in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (Supra) .
Page 5 of 6
W.P.(C) 6590/2016 & connected petitions
case, it cannot be said that the impugned recovery is harsh or arbitrary. There is no equity in favour of petitioners and the facts of the instant case justify recovery of excess payment made on account of grant of Stagnation Increments consecutively.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
February 06, 2018
r
Page 6 of 6
W.P.(C) 6590/2016 & connected petitions
3 issues framed by the court
Whether recovery of Stagnation Increments granted in violation of Office Memorandum can be initiated from retired Board level Executives.
Whether the ratio in Rafiq Masih precludes recovery of dues from senior executives.
Whether the recovery notices amounted to harsh or arbitrary action causing extreme hardship.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq MasihDistinguished¶25
State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (white washer)& Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 334 · Who else cites this
Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarkhand & Ors.Relied on¶29
Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarkhand & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 417 · Who else cites this
P.K. Bajpai Bootha Prasad Rao I T N Veeraraghavan R.Krishan
Union of India and others
Sunil Gaur
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
