Chattisgarh High Court
Vidyadhar Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. on 18 November, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(1)MPHT105(CG)
Author: Satish K. Agnihotri
Bench: Satish K. Agnihotri
ORDER
Satish K. Agnihotri
1. The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the orders dated 13-3-2003 and 28-2-2003 (Annexure P-l filed collectively) whereby a sum of Rs. 98,917/- has been directed to be deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner.
2. Undisputed facts, in the present case, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Department of Tribal Development on 30-74961. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Lecturer and thereafter to the post of Principal. On 31-5-2002, the petitioner while working as Principal retired on attaining the age of superannuation from the Government Higher Secondary School, Gharghora, District Raigarh. The petitioner received communications dated 13-3-2003 and 28-2-2003 (Annexure P-l collectively) whereby it was directed that a sum of Rs. 98,917/- be deducted from the pensionary benefits settled to the tune of Rs. 2,96,670/-.
3. The petitioner has filed this petition praying that the impugned orders (Annexure P-l collectively) deducting a sum of Rs. 98,917/- from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner are illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable.
4. The respondents in their return submitted that the petitioner was paid excess amount w.e.f. 30-1-1986 by mistake, as such the impugned orders for deduction of Rs. 98,917/- paid as excess amount was just and legal.
5. Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not overdrawn any excess amount and whatever amount as paid by the respondents, the petitioner had accepted it as his salary right from 30-1-1986 till the date of his retirement, i.e., 31-5-2002. Learned Counsel further submitted that if there was any excess amount that was not made (sic : paid) on account of the fault committed by the petitioner, as such the respondents were not entitled to recover the same. It was next submitted in the rejoinder that the petitioner was promoted as lecturer w.e.f. 26-9-1966 on the pay-scale of Rs. 250-450/- and the same was revised later on as Rs. 350-600/- w.e.f. 1-1-1972 and thereafter again revised as Rs. 925-1500/-. The petitioner was promoted as Principal on 30-1-1986 in the pay-scale of Rs. 1000-1920/-. Learned Counsel further submitted that the calculation of the respondents to the effect that the petitioner ought to have been paid Rs. 3,6751-per month as Principal was not correct.
6. As per the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1987, which were made effective from 1-1-1986, the pay-scale of the petitioner as Lecturer was fixed at the scale of Rs. 1540-2740/-. Thereafter, as per the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, the pay-scale of the petitioner as Lecturer was fixed at Rs. 1640-2900/-. The pay-scale of the petitioner as Principal was fixed at Rs. 1820-3300/- and thereafter immediately it was re-fixed at the scale of Rs. 2375-4175/-. As per the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1998, the petitioner's pay-scale was fixed at Rs. 8000-13,500/-. All the above stated fixations were recorded in the service book of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner's pay- scale was fixed by the respondents and the petitioner had been paid the pay fixation for about 16 years, i.e., till he retired on 31-5-2002, the action of the respondents for recovering a sum of Rs. 98,917/- from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner was illegal, unreasonable and discriminatory.
7. Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the contrary, submitted that it was admitted that the pay-scale was fixed by the respondents and relevant entries as stated by the petitioner had also been made in the service book of the petitioner. Learned Counsel submitted that the payment made on the basis of fixation of pay-scale was excessive and it was done inadvertently. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner should not get advantage of excess payment made inadvertently by the respondents.
8. Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties wherein all the facts are admitted except that the payment made was excessive and the same was done inadvertently by the officers. The petitioner can not be faulted for the excess payment, if any. On perusal of several documents, i.e., Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1987, Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 and thereafter the entries made in the service book of the petitioner, it is clear that no excess payment has been made. The respondents had not submitted any calculations in support of their contention that the excess payment was made.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , has held that the employees who have received higher scale due to no fault of theirs, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount already paid to them. In that case, the petitioners were given higher pay-scale w.e.f. 1-1-1973, although only after a period of 10 years they became entitled to the higher pay-scale, but as they received higher scale since 1973, and the scale was reduced in the year 1984 w.e.f. 1-1-1973.
10. Again, the Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1995) Supp. (1) SCC 18, held in Para 5 as under :-
5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant can not be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant.
11. In another case, the Supreme Court in the case of V. Gangaram v. Regional Joint Director and Ors. , wherein the question of payment of increments on the basis of two qualifications namely M.A. and M.Ed, was involved and the petitioner was granted 4 increments for acquiring M.A. and M.Ed, qualifications, however, the petitioner was entitled to 2 increments for acquiring the said qualifications. The Supreme Court was of the view that excess amount liable to be recovered. In the above stated case, earlier decisions in the cases of Shyam Babu Verma (supra) and Sahib Ram (supra) were not referred to.
12. In the present case, the respondents have not established as to how the excess payment was made to the petitioner from 30-1-1986 till the retirement of the petitioner, rather the petitioner had proved on the basis of various pay revision rules, i.e., Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1987, Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 that no excess payment was made to him. Even otherwise, for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner will not be just and proper.
13. In view of the above stated facts and the decisions of the Supreme Court, the petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 13-3-2003 and 28-2-2003 (Annexure P-l filed collectively) directing recovery of the amount allegedly paid to the petitioner in excess, are hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits without any deduction. No order as to costs.