Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Firoz Khan S/O Usman Khan vs Union Of India & 2 on 16 December, 2016

Author: Anant S.Dave

Bench: Anant S. Dave, A.Y. Kogje

                C/SCA/15720/2015                                             CAV JUDGMENT



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15720 of 2015

         FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


         HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE


         and
         HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

         ==========================================================

         1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
               to see the judgment ?

         2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

         3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
               the judgment ?

         4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of
               law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
               India or any order made thereunder ?

         ==========================================================
                          FIROZ KHAN S/O USMAN KHAN....Petitioner(s)
                                          Versus
                             UNION OF INDIA & 2....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR JOY MATHEW, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         MS ARCHANA U AMIN, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 , 3
         ==========================================================

             CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
                    and
                    HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

                                      Date : 16/12/2016


                                       CAV JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 18

HC-NIC Page 1 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)

1.   This   petition   under   Article   226   of   the  Constitution   of   India   is   filed   by   a   retired  employee of Railways challenging the order dated  11.06.2015   passed   by   the   Central   Administrative  Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in OA No.344 of 2015.  The   petitioner   also   challenges   the   order   dated  14.08.2015 passed by the CAT, Ahmedabad in Review  Application   No.40/2015.   The   CAT,   Ahmedabad   had  dismissed both the aforementioned petitions i.e.  main petition and the review application.

2.   The   subject   matter   of   the   litigation   is  revolving  around   the claim  of the  petitioner  to  receive third Modified Assured Career Progression  Scheme   (MACPS).   The   facts   in   nutshell   are   as  under:

2.1The petitioner was appointed  as   Khalasi     (Helper)   on  02.05.1981   in   the   Signal  Department   of   Baroda   Division  of   Railways.   After   putting   10  years   of   service,   he   was  Page 2 of 18 HC-NIC Page 2 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT granted   regular   promotion   as  driver Grade­III on 19.08.1991,  thereafter   he   was   given  promotion as driver Grade­II on  ad­hoc basis on 31.10.2013. The  petitioner was thereafter given  benefit   of   third   MACP   with  effect from 02.05.2011 by order  dated 31.10.2011. Thereafter as  the   Railways   Department   was   of  the opinion that the petitioner  was   given   the   third   MACP  erroneously considering his ad­ hoc promotion to post of Driver  Grade­II as regular promotion.
2.2  To rectify such a mistake,  the   petitioner   was   issued   show  cause   notice   on   15.10.2013   to  which the petitioner replied on  21.10.2013. After receiving the  reply,   the   Department   took   a  decision   on   23.10.2013   whereby  the   third   MACP   granted   to   the  petitioner   was   withdrawn   and  the   petitioner   was   directed   to  pay   back   an   amount   of  Rs.24,438/­.   It   is   this  decision dated 23.10.2013 which  Page 3 of 18 HC-NIC Page 3 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT the   petitioner   has   challenged  before the CAT, Ahmedabad.
2.3The   CAT,   Ahmedabad   by   an  order   dated   11th  June   2015  dismissed   the   OA   upholding   the  decision   of   the   Department   and  holding   that   the   petitioner   is  not   entitled   for   the   third  MACP.
2.4Aggrieved   by   such   decision,  the petitioner preferred Review  Application   No.40   of   2015  seeking   review   of   the   decision  of CAT, Ahmedabad  in OA No.344  of   2014   with   a   specific   claim  that   the   applicant   having  retired   from   the   Railways  Department as Group­D employee,  and any excess  payment  made to  him   without   his   fault,   such  amount   may   not   be   recovered  from   him   and   for   this   purpose  referred to the judgment of the  Apex Court in case of State of  Punjab Versus Rafiq Masih. Such  review application also came to  be   dismissed   and   while  Page 4 of 18 HC-NIC Page 4 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT dismissing the review petition,  CAT,   Ahmedabad   held   that   the  recovery   of   the   additional  amount   paid   under   the   mistake  cannot   be   interfered   with   on  the   basis   of   the   judgment   of  the   Apex   Court   as   the  petitioner   had   retired   on  31.10.2013   while   the   judgment  of   the   Apex   Court   was  pronounced   on   18.12.2014   which  would apply prospectively only.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Joy Mathew for the  petitioners   and   Ms.   Archana   U   Amin   for   the  respondents. Learned Advocate for the petitioner  submits   that   considering   the   fact   that   the  petitioner   has   joined   the   services   in   the   year  1981 and has retired in the year 2013, therefore,  he has completed more than 30 years of service.  Therefore,   applying   the   modified   MACPS   to   the  petitioner,   he   is   entitled   to   the   benefit   of  higher   grade   pay   on   completion   of   30   years   of  service which he completed in the year 2011.

4.   He submits that prior to 5th  Pay Commission,  with a view to avoid stagnation, One Time Bound  Promotion/Biennial   Cadre   Review   Scheme   was   in  operation, according to which two promotions were  Page 5 of 18 HC-NIC Page 5 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT given   on   completion   of   16   and   26   years   of  service.   After   the   acceptance   of     5th  Pay  Commission, Central Government introduced Assured  Career   Progression   Scheme   (ACPS)   on   19.08.1999  and   according   to   the   Scheme,   two   financial  upgradations   are   available   to   the   employees  belonging   to   Group­B,   C   and   D   on   completion   of  their   12/24   years   of   service.   Thereafter   on  acceptance of 6th Pay Commission, Modified Assured  Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) was introduced  for the Railways employees  on 10.06.2009 and as  per   this   scheme,   Railway   employee   is   given   the  benefit of higher grade pay on completion of 10,  20   and   30   years   of   regular   service.   He   submits  that the petitioner was given first promotion as  Driver Grade­III on 19.08.1991 and thereafter he  has completed  30 years of service  on 15.02.2011  and therefore under the MACPS, he was granted the  benefit   of   third   MACPS.   He   submits   that   on   the  premise   that   the   petitioner   has   not   been   given  any   promotion   after   year   1991,   the   respondent­ Railways   had   correctly   given   the   benefit   of  second   and   third   MACPS   by   an   order   dated  15.11.2011   and   necessary   pay   fixation   order   was  also passed on 02.12.2011, therefore, the notice  dated   15.10.2013   virtually   in   the   month     in  which   the   petitioner   was   to   retire   and   after  giving this show cause notice, taking a decision  on   23.10.2013   shows   great   haste   on   the   part   of  Page 6 of 18 HC-NIC Page 6 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT the Department and in such haste, the respondents  were   not   able   to   appreciate   that   the   earlier  decision of the Department to grant two ACPS was  correct.

5. He   has   further   submitted   that   the   recovery  ordered   under   the   impugned   order   is   also   not  justified and is against the principles laid down  by   the   Apex   Court   in   the   judgment   of  State   of  Punjab Versus Rafiq Masih reported in 2015 (4) SCC 

334.

6.   As   against   this,   learned   Advocate   for   the  respondents   relying   upon   the   affidavit   in   reply  filed  on behalf of respondent  no.2 submits  that  the petitioner had availed one regular promotion  on the post of Driver Grade­III on 19.08.1991 and  therefore   he   is   entitled   to   receive   only   two  financial   upgradations   under   the   MACPS   and  therefore,   the   third   MACPS   granted   to   the  petitioner   was   considered   to   be   an   erroneous  action   on   the   part   of   the   Department   and  therefore   withdrawal   of   such   third   MACPS   is   in  consonance   with   the   scheme   and   object   of   the  MACPS.

7.   Learned   Advocate   for   respondents   submit   that  the   petitioner   was   appointed   on   02.05.1985   as  Page 7 of 18 HC-NIC Page 7 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT regular   Khalasi.   On   19.08.1991,   the   petitioner  was promoted to the post of Driver Grade­III. The  petitioner   was   promoted   as   Driver   Grade­II   with  effect from 25.08.1998 on ad­hoc basis but in the  pay   scale   of   Rs.4000/­   to   Rs.6000/­.   It   is  submitted   that   the   third   financial   upgradation  granted by an order dated 31.01.2011 with effect  from   02.05.2011   was   granted   through   an   over  sight, considering his promotion to be a regular  promotion   and   not   ad­hoc   promotion.   This   error  came to the notice at the time of processing the  retirement   benefits   and   therefore,   show   cause  notice was issued on 15.10.2013 and after giving  an   opportunity   of   show   cause,   the   decision   of  withdrawing   the   third   MACPS   was   taken   on  23.10.2013. 

8.   Having   considered   the   rival   submissions   and  the   from   the   facts   narrated   herein   above,   it  appears that the petitioner was appointed in the  year   1981   in   the   Grade   Pay   of   Rs.1800/­   and   as  per the MACPS applicable he would have got first  financial   upgradation   in   the   Grade   Pay   of  Rs.1900/­ in the year 1991 but as the petitioner  was promoted on 19.08.1991 on the post of Driver  Grade­III   having   Grade   Pay   of   Rs.1900/­,   the  second financial upgradation would be due in the  year   2001   and   having   Grade   Pay   of   Rs.2000/­,  however, the petitioner was promoted on the post  Page 8 of 18 HC-NIC Page 8 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT of Driver  Grade­II on ad­hoc basis having  Grade  Pay of Rs.2400/­ which was in the year 1998. For  the   correct   appreciation   and   application   of   the  benefits under the MACPS,  it would be necessary  to reproduce herein below the relevant Clauses of  the MACPS.

"Clause   4;   benefit   of   pay  fixation available at the time  of   financial   upgradation   under  the Scheme. Therefore, the pay  shall   be   raised   by   3%   of   the  total   pay   in   the   Pay   Band   and  the Grade Pay drawn before such  upgradation.   There   shall,  however, be no further fixation  of   pay   at   the   time   of   regular  promotion if it is in the same  Grade   Pay   as   granted   under  MACPS. However, at the time of  actual promotion if it happens  to be in a post carrying higher  Grade   Pay   than   what   is  available   under   MACPS,   no   pay  fixation would be available and  only   difference   of   Grade   Pay  would   be   made   available.   To  illustrate,   in   case   a   Railway  Servant   joins   as   a   direct  Page 9 of 18 HC-NIC Page 9 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT recruit   in   the   Grade   Pay   of  Rs.1900   in   PB­1   an   he   gets   no  promotion   till   completion   of  ten   years   of   service,   he   will  be   granted   financial  upgradation under MACPS in the  next   higher   Grade   Pay   of  Rs.2000   and   his   pay   will   be  fixed   by   granting   him   one  increment   plus   the   difference  of   Grade   Pay   (i.e.   Rs.100). 
After   availing   financial  upgradation   under   MACPS,if   the  Railway   servant   gets   his  regular   promotion   in   the  hierarchy   of   his   cadre,   which  is to the Grade Pay of Rs.2400,  on   regular   promotion,   he   will  only be granted the difference  of   Grade   Pay   between   Rs.2000  and   Rs.2400.   No   additional  increment   will   be   granted   at  this stage."
"Clause   9;   'Regular   Service'  for   the   purpose   of   the   MACPS  shall commence from the date of  joining   of   a   post   in   direct  entry grade on a regular basis  either   on   direct   recruitment  Page 10 of 18 HC-NIC Page 10 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT basis   or   on   absorption/re­ employment   basis.   Service  rendered   on   adhoc/contract  basis   before   regular  appointment   on   pre­appointment  training   shall   not   be   taken  into   reckoning.   However,   past  continuous   regular   service   in  another   Government/Department  in   a   post   carrying   same   Grade  Pay   prior   to   regular  appointment   in   a   new  Department,   without   a   break,  shall   also   be   counted   towards  qualifying   regular   service   for  the purpose of MACPS only (and  not   for   the   regular  promotions).   However,   benefits  under   the   MACPS   in   such   cases  shall   not   be   considered   till  the   satisfactory   completion   of  the probation period in the new  post."
"Clause 28;  
A.(i)   If   a   Railway   servant  (LDC) in PB­1 in the Grade Pay  of   Rs.1900   gets   his   first  regular promotion (UDC) in the  Grade   Pay   of   Rs.2400   on  Page 11 of 18 HC-NIC Page 11 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT completion   of   8   years   of  service   and   then   continues   in  the same Grade Pay for further  10 years without any promotion  then   he   would   be   eligible   for  2nd  financial   upgradation   under  the MACPS in PB­1 in the Grade  Pay of Rs.2800 after completion  of 18 years (8+10 years).
(ii)   In   case   he   does   not   get  promotion   thereafter,   then   he  would   get   3rd  financial  upgradation   in   PB­2   in   Grade  Pay of Rs.4200 on completion of  further   10   years   of   service  i.e. after 28 years (8+10+10).
(iii)   However,   if   he   gets   2nd  promotion   after   5   years   of  further service in PB­2 in the  Grade Pay of Rs.4200 (Assistant  Grade/Grade   'C')   i.e.   on  completion of 23 years (8+10+5  years)   then   he   would   get   3rd  financial   upgradation   after  completion of 30 years i.e. 10  years after the 2nd  ACP in PB­2  in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600. In  Page 12 of 18 HC-NIC Page 12 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT the   above   scenario,   the   pay  shall   be   raised   by   3%   of   the  total   pay   in   the   Pay   Band   and  Grade   Pay   drawn   before   such  upgradation.   There   shall,  however, be no further fixation  of   pay   at   the   time   of   regular  promotion if it is in the same  Grade   Pay   or   in   the   higher  Grade   Pay.   Only   the   difference  of   Grade   Pay   would   be  admissible   at   the   time   of  promotions.
(B) If a Railway servant (LDC)  in   PB­1   in   the   Grade   Pay   of  Rs.1900 in granted 1st financial  upgradation under the MACPS on  the   completion   of   10   years   of  service   in   PB­1   in   the   Grade  Pay   of   Rs.2000   and   5   years  later   he   gets   1st  regular  promotion (UDC) in PB­1 in the  Grade   Pay   of   Rs.2400,   the   2nd  financial   upgradation   under  MACPS   (in   the   next   Grade   Pay  w.r.t.   Grade   Pay   held   by  Railway   servant)   will   be  Page 13 of 18 HC-NIC Page 13 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT granted   on   completion   of   20  years of service in PB­1 in the  Grade   Pay   of   Rs.2800.   On  completion   of   30   years   of  service, he will get 3rd  ACP in  the   Grade   Pay   of   Rs.4200. 

However, if two promotions are  earned before completion of 20  years,   only   3rd  financial  upgradation would be admissible  on   completion   of   10   years   of  service   on   Grade   Pay   from   the  date of 2nd  promotion or at the  30th  year of service, whichever  is earlier.

(C)   If   a   Railway   servant   has  been granted either two regular  promotions   or   2nd  financial  upgradation   under   the   ACP  Scheme   of   October,   1999   after  completion   of   24   years   of  regular   service   then   only   3rd  financial   upgradation   would   be  admissible   to   him   under   the  MACPS on completion of 30 years  of service provided that he has  not   earned   third   promotion   in  the hierarchy.

Page 14 of 18

HC-NIC Page 14 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT As the petitioner  was given  adhoc  promotion  in 1998 and was not regularized, the Department  is   justified   in   holding   such   adhoc   promotion  equivalent   to   the   first   financial   upgradation  under   the   MACPS.   Therefore,   as   per   the   scheme,  after   having   worked   on   the   financially   upgraded  position   for   10   years,   he   is   entitled   to   2nd  MACPS,   which   will   be   in   the   year   2008,   whereas  the 3rd  MACPS will be available only in the year  2018. In the meanwhile, as the petitioner retired  in 2013, there was no occasion to the petitioner  to entitle to 3rd MACPS.

 

9.   Considering   the   aforesaid,   the   Tribunal   has  correctly   appreciated   the   facts   and   concluded  that as the petitioner was promoted on 28.08.1998  as   Driver   Grade­II   which   was   purely   on   adhoc  basis   which   cannot   be   construed   as   regular  promotion and still he has retired from the post  of Driver Grade­II. The benefit of third MACPS is  not admissible. 

10.   Insofar   as   the   recovery   ordered   by   the  impugned   order   which   was   maintained   by   the  Tribunal   on   the   ground   that   the   petitioner   had  retired   prior   to   the   pronouncement   of   the  judgment.   In   the   case   of   Rafiq   Masih   (supra),  this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has  Page 15 of 18 HC-NIC Page 15 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT fallen   into   error   simply   on   the   ground   of  prospectivity of the application of the judgment.  The   principle   as   laid   down   in   the   judgment   of  Rafiq  Masih (supra) would  clearly  apply even to  the   facts   of   this   case   and   hence   when   the   Apex  Court in paragraph 18 has held as under.

"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:
(i) Recovery from the employees  belonging   to   Class­III   and  Class­IV   service   (or   Group­C  and Group­D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired  employees, or the employees who  are   due   to   retire   within   one  Page 16 of 18 HC-NIC Page 16 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT 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) Recover 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."

And   when   the   case   has   come   up   before   this  Court   for   the   adjudication,   there   is   no  hesitation   in   applying   the   law   as   laid   down   by  the Apex Court and quash the impugned order dated  Page 17 of 18 HC-NIC Page 17 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/15720/2015 CAV JUDGMENT 23.10.2013   insofar   as   effecting   of   the   recovery  is concerned. 

11.  With  the aforesaid,  the  petition   is allowed  to the limited extent of quashing of the recovery  ordered under order dated 23.10.2013 whereas the  remaining part of the order dated 23.10.2013 and  the judgment of the CAT in OA No.344 of 2015 and  in   Review   Application   No.40   of   2015   are  maintained.   Rule   made   absolute   to   the   aforesaid  extent and in the facts of this case. No order as  to costs.

                         

(ANANT S.DAVE, J.) (A.Y. KOGJE, J.) FARHAN Page 18 of 18 HC-NIC Page 18 of 18 Created On Sat Dec 17 00:57:25 IST 2016