Partly allowed

Smt. M Rekha v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2024WP/57113/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired scientist challenged the CAT order upholding reduction of her status and pay and recovery of excess payment. The High Court partly allowed the petition: no recovery of excess paid beyond five years before the notice dated 08.04.2013, with remaining recovery in twelve monthly pension installments.

What did the court decide?

Recovery barred for five years prior to 08.04.2013; balance recoverable in twelve equal monthly installments from periodic pension.

Smt. M Rekha Vs the Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44625-DB WP No. 57113 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 57113 OF 2016 (S-CAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. M REKHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O.K.S.SAMPAT BALLAL, WORKING AS SCIENTIST-C, CENTRAL SERICULTURE RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, MYSORE-570 008.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶17

CENTRAL SILK BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, CSB COMPLEX, BTM LAYOUT, MADIWALA, BANGALORE-560 068.

¶18

THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL SERICULTURE RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, MYSORE-570 008.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:44625-DB WP No. 57113 of 2016

¶21

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN.& ACCOUNTS) CENTRAL SILK BOARD, CSB COMLEX, BTM LAYOUT, MADIWALA, BANGALORE-560 068.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT.ANUPAMA HEGDE., CGC FOR R1; SRI. N S PRASAD., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.08.2016 MADE IN O.A.170/01470/2014 PASSED BY THE HONBLE CAT VIDE ANNEX-A PERUSE THE SAME AND QUASH THE SAID ORDER AND THE ORDERS CHALLENGED IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE BENEFITS OF FCS GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER FROM TIME TO TIME AND ALSO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENT FROM EFFECTING ANY RECOVERY OF THE PAY AND EMOLUMENTS ALREADY PAID TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶29

Petitioner, a retired civil servant is grieving against

¶30

the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 25.08.2016 whereby his Application in O.A.No.170/01470/2014 has been negatived. In the said Application, Petitioner had essentially laid a challenge to the reduction of his status and pay from the Scientist

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44625-DB WP No. 57113 of 2016

¶32

Cadre and to the consequent recovery of the amount paid

¶33

allegedly in excess of his entitlement.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

¶35

seeks to falter impugned order of the Tribunal mainly on three grounds viz, i) the status & position from initiation to their graduation to the present level obtained for years in the normal course and therefore, the same cannot be disturbed with retrospective effect; ii) Petitioner has put in a long & spotless service and now, has been in the evening of her life and therefore, no recovery can be made in the light of Apex Court decision in STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER)¹ and thirdly, the exercise that has been undertaken by the answering Respondents was never directed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 34296/2010 between UNION OF INDIA v. SRI DODDA NARASAIAH , disposed off on 26.09.2012 and therefore, there was no warrant or justification for the said exercise that has prejudiced the Petitioner and like employees.

¶36

1 AIR 2015 SC 696

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:44625-DB WP No. 57113 of 2016

¶39

Learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the

¶40

Respondents vehemently resists the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order of the Tribunal and the reasons on which it has been constructed. He points out that much of the dispute which the Petitioner raises is resjudicated because of earlier round of litigation and therefore, Petition be dismissed. He repels invocation of WHITE WASHER case relied upon by Petitioner's counsel. He asserts that the exercise in question that has eventually resulted into redesignation/reduction of the status & pay of a class of employees like the Petitioner has been undertaken & accomplished because of DODDA NARASAIAH'S case supra . So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Petition.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, we are inclined to grant limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons.

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44625-DB WP No. 57113 of 2016

¶43

4.1 There is force in the first submission of learned

¶44

counsel appearing for the Petitioner that in DODDA NARASAIAH’S case the Coordinate Bench had only directed consideration of claim of the litigant – employee “ for extending revised pay scales as was given to erstwhile Research Assistants ”. That being said , one cannot dispute the employer’s prerogative to reorganize the staff structure in accordance with law when existing organization has some breach. Secondly, much of the dispute as to alteration of status & pay was already adjudicated in the earlier round of litigation in O.A.No.363/2013, that did not yield much milk to the Petitioner. Therefore, we cannot undertake judicial evaluation of change of status of employees and staff structure, as rightly contended by learned Sr. Panel Counsel.

¶45

4.2 The second submission of learned counsel for

¶46

the Petitioner that on account of Memorandum dated 06.04.2006 pay of the Petitioner was fixed at Rs.8,000/- in

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44625-DB WP No. 57113 of 2016

¶48

the pay scale of 8000-13500 with retrospective effect from

¶49

07.08.1999 and therefore, detrimental alteration of status because of the orders that were challenged in the OA, even if sustained recovery cannot be effected, needs to be countenanced, to some extent. The decision to alter the status and effect recovery of the excess was taken on 24.12.2012 and explanation was sought for on 08.04.2013 by issuing notice. The Apex Court in RAFIQ MASIH supra has observed at Paragraph No.18 as under:

¶50

“(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 issued.”

¶51

In view of this, the recovery that goes five years in reverse

¶52

gear is not sustainable. In other words, Respondents can recover the excess payment for the period that goes below

¶53

08.04.2013 i.e., the date of notice.

¶54

4.3 The vehement submission of learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondents that RAFIQ MASIH is confined to Group-C & Group-D employees, is bit difficult to agree with. The protection contemplated under

¶55

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:44625-DB WP No. 57113 of 2016

¶56

postulate (i) at Paragraph No.18 relates to these classes of employees is true; however, a perusal of the entire judgement coupled with postulate Nos. (ii) to (v) makes it clear that it applies to all other classes of employees, more particularly who have demitted office after retirement. Further, there is force in the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the permissible recovery should be in easy installments since Petitioner is a pensioner. The contention of the Sr. Panel Counsel that Petitioner is drawing a monthly pension of Rs.52,000/- and she has got about Rs.25 Lakh as terminal benefits, would not rob away equitable elements obtaining in the submission for easy installments. After all, Petitioner served the Central Government for decades and her Service Records are spotless. Such pensioners should be treated with soft gloves, the Respondents being constitutionally expected to be model employers vide BHUPENDRA NATH HAZARIKA

¶57

v. STATE OF ASSAM²

¶58

2 (2013) 2 SCC 516

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44625-DB WP No. 57113 of 2016

¶60

In the above circumstances, this Petition is allowed in part and the impugned order of the Tribunal is modified to the effect that the Respondents cannot recover any differential of the amount for the period of five years running in the reverse gear reckoned from 08.04.2013; further, the permissible recovery for the other period shall be in twelve equivalized monthly installments from the pension payable periodically.

¶61

Costs made easy.

¶62

Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶63

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶64

CBC/Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Smt. M Rekha v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M Rekha v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K S Prakash Vs the Union of India

Sri Raghu Vs Sri a P Ramesh

Sri. Mahesh Kumar Vs Inspector General of Registration

St Theresa Educational, Cultural and Social Development Society Vs M Babanna

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Anandappa K v

Smt Saraswathi v Vs Sri Prakash