Writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing an application seeking restoration of pay and cessation of recovery, filed by an employee of North Western Railway against the Union of India after retirement.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1774/2020
----Petitioners
Versus
Norat Mal Son Of Shri Ramdev, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of House No. 129/43, Shiv Nagar, Sadu Basti, Topdharma, Ajmer (Raj.), Presently Working As Senior Helper Khallasi In S And T, Department, Under SSE Talley North Western Railway, Ajmer Division, Ajmer-305001.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment / Order
19/02/2020
Petitioners have filed the petition challenging the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, whereby, Original Application filed by the respondent, was allowed.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
Respondent had filed the Original Application before the Tribunal seeking following reliefs:-
(2 of 4)
[CW-1774/2020]
“(i) That the respondents may be directed to hold good benefits of financial upgradation allowed prior to the month of March 2019 and to allow to draw pay & allowances as drawn prior to March 2019 with due benefits till retirement i.e. 30/11/2019 by modifying pay slip for the month of March 2019 (AnnexureA/1) with all consequential benefits.
(ii) That respondents be further directed to not to recover any amount from the applicant by quashing any order which not served upon the applicant be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.
(iii) Any other order, direction or relief may be passed in favour of the applicant which may be deemed fit, just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) That the costs of this application may be awarded.”
Grievance of the respondent was that his pay has been reduced from Rs.31,100/- per month to Rs.29,300/- per month without affording him any opportunity of hearing and the order dated 16.05.2019 seeking recovery of the amount already paid to the respondent was against the principles of natural justice.
Learned Tribunal vide the impugned order held that the order, whereby, pay of the respondent was reduced had been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and thus, learned Tribunal rightly held that the same was violative of principles of natural justice.
Learned Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , wherein, it was held as under:-
(3 of 4)
[CW-1774/2020]
“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 herein above, 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.”
In the facts of the case, learned Tribunal rightly held that the order, whereby, the pay of the respondent had been reduced from Rs.31,100/- per month to Rs.29,300/- per month
(4 of 4)
[CW-1774/2020]
was liable to be set aside and learned Tribunal rightly directed the petitioners to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent. Thereafter, learned Tribunal further observed that no recovery could be effected from the respondent with regard to the retiral dues liable to be paid to the respondent in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih case(supra). Learned Tribunal has further rightly ordered that all the retiral benefits of the respondent be computed and released to the respondent within two months as during the pendency of the Original Application respondent had superannuated on 30.11.2019. It has been further ordered that till the time respondent is heard and a fresh order is passed, he shall be entitled to full pensionary benefits consequent of the setting aside of the impugned order, whereby, pay of the respondent had been reduced. In case, after passing a fresh order any reduction in pension of the respondent is to be made, the same would be applicable with prospective effect.
The order passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from the vice of illegality and calls for no interference. Dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
(SABINA),J
Mohita /65
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal correctly dismissed the writ petition challenging the order denying correction of a pay reduction.
Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that no interference is called for in the impugned order.
Whether the order requiring return of the case for a fair hearing was illegal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors.Relied on¶25
State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. in (2015) 4 SCC 334 · Who else cites this
Union Of India
Norat Mal
Sabina
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
