High Court held that selection grade granted before completion of requisite service was invalid. However, applying Rafiq Masih, recovery from a retired Class-III employee was impermissible. Court ordered refund of the deducted amount.
Refund of Rs. 24,567/- to the petitioner within three months.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWPOA No. 5967 of 2020
Date of Decision: August 22, 2023
Sudarshan Kumar Pathania
…Petitioner.
Versus
The Secretary, Urban Development & others
..Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner: Mr.Yoginder Pal Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Baldev Negi, Additional Advocate General.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral)
The petitioner was appointed as Swasthya Sahayak in Municipal Council, Kullu on 1.3.1974 and was promoted as Sanitary Supervisor on 17.7.1982. Thereafter, he was granted Selection Grade from 1.4.1986 in furtherance to the resolution passed by the Municipal Council. The services of the petitioner alongwith other Municipal employees were integrated in the Department of Urban Development w.e.f. 30.5.1994.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
completed in July 1987, but the selection grade was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. April, 1986.
3
petitioner in the year 2014, whereas the petitioner had already retired from service on 31.3.2011.
4
when selection grade was granted to him by the Municipal Council by passing a resolution. Therefore, selection grade granted to the petitioner by passing resolution was not legally valid and it has been rightly objected by the audit party. Refixation of the pay and pension has been stated to have been done by the respondents by considering the grant of selection grade from 1.8.1987. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled for grant of selection grade from 1.4.1986.
“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess 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:
5
establishing that petitioner was instrumental in granting selection grade in 1986. He was Class-III employee. Case of petitioner is covered under Clause (i) of para-18 of Rafiq Masih’s judgment. Therefore, recovery was impermissible. Petitioner is entitled for refund of the same. Accordingly, amount of `24,567/is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner within three months.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
(Bipin Chander Negi), Judge.
August 22, 2023 (mamta)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a respondent is entitled to selection grade from the initial date of resolution or from the date of audit validation.
Whether recovery of pension amount from a retired Class-III employee based on invalid selection grade is impermissible under Rafiq Masih.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and othersFollowed¶30
State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudarshan Kumar Pathania
The Secretary, Urban Development
Vivek Singh Thakur
Bipin Chander Negi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
