Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1676 (DEL)

Union of India v. Satya Pal

2014-05-26

DEEPA SHARMA, GITA MITTAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Gita Mittal, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd November, 2012 allowing the O.A.No.3062/2011. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are within a narrow compass. The respondent retired from the post of Assistant Controller of Stores at the Wheel and Axle Plant, Yelahanka, Bangalore and his settled dues were based by the respondents on the pay he was drawing at the time of his superannuation. 2. The respondent’s appointment as Assistant Controller, Stores (liaison) Group B was by way of a promotion from the post of Officer Superintendent to which he had been given promotion with effect from 1st April, 1990. The petitioner was promoted as the Assistant Controller Stores (Liaison) with effect from 9th April, 1991. The promotion was on actual basis. 3. It appears that a letter was written to the petitioner to review his pay fixation and retirement benefits which were not correctly fixed resulting in the filing of the application before the Tribunal which was accepted by the order impugned before us. 4. It appears that Satya Pal, the respondent herein was working as Chief Progress Inspector (an ex-cadre post) (hereafter referred to as ‘CPI’) at New Delhi from 18.11.1986 to 08.04.1991. Subsequently he was posted as Assistant Controller Stores (ACOS/WAP for brevity) at New Delhi on ad-hoc basis with effect from 9th April, 1991. This position was a promotion for the respondent. At the time of promotion as ACOS (ad-hoc) the respondent was drawing pay of Rs.2375/- as CPI (the ex-cadre post) in the grade of Rs.2000-3200/-. While fixing the respondent’s pay in the post of ACOS grade, his pay was fixed at Rs.2525/- taking into consideration the respondent’s pay as Chief Progress Inspector at that time which was at Rs.2375/-. 5. It appears that the petitioner was of the view that such pay fixation was a mistake inasmuch as the respondent’s pay in the excadre post of Chief Progress Inspector could not have been taken into consideration. This discrepancy was pointed out by the Audit Department. On realizing the mistake on 1st April, 1996, the respondent’s pay was refixed taking his cadre pay as Chief Clerk. The refixation resulted in decrease in the respondent’s emoluments and with effect from 9th April, 1991 his pay was fixed at Rs.2180/- instead of Rs.2525/- as ACOS. 6. This discrepancy was pointed out by the Audit Department. On realizing the mistake on 1st April, 1996, the respondent’s pay was refixed taking his cadre pay as Chief Clerk. The refixation resulted in decrease in the respondent’s emoluments and with effect from 9th April, 1991 his pay was fixed at Rs.2180/- instead of Rs.2525/- as ACOS. 6. It appears that the respondent was extremely opposed to the unilateral decision taken by the petitioner more so as it was without any prior notice to him. To add to the ignominy, the petitioner calculated excess payment to the respondent at Rs.22,600/- which amount also they recovered from his retiral benefits. 7. The petitioner, of course, did not favourably consider the respondent’s representation requesting it to restore his pensioner benefits, contending that he was posted as ACOS, merely on adhoc basis. 8. The respondent challenge to this action by way of an application to the Tribunal was accepted by the impugned order dated 22nd November, 2012. Detailed reasons have been recorded in the impugned judgment to reject the submission of the petitioner, we are satisfied that the petitioner has not made out any case for interfering with the order passed by the Tribunal so far as the refixation and recovery is concerned. It is an admitted position that the same was done without any notice to the respondent and that the petitioner has violated principles of natural justice. It is unfortunate that not only did the petitioner effect the pay refixation on the eve of the respondent’s retirement but they also proceeded to unilaterally withhold amount which the respondent would have received on retirement, yet another mile stone of his life. The retrospective refixation of the salary in these circumstances, that too without notice to the person affected, is legally impermissible. The Tribunal has held so in the impugned order. 9. The material fact which has weighed with the Tribunal in granting the claimed relief to the respondent is the fact that the petitioner was bound to inform Sh.Satya Pal, the respondent herein, of the consequences of his accepting the promotion to the post of ACOS the respondent deserved to know that his pay packet was bound to decrease if he accepted the promotion. The respondent’s case before the Tribunal was that if he had prior information of the financial loss which he would incur, in case he accepted the promotion, he would have opted to continue as Chief Progress Inspector (the ex-cadre post) on which he was working. The Tribunal has thus rightly concluded that the respondent cannot be made to suffer a financial loss for the fault of the petitioner. 10. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal. This writ petition is hereby dismissed. 11. We make it clear that the order of the Tribunal as well as the order passed by us shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. The petitioner shall pass appropriate orders on the consequential orders in favour of the respondent within a period of four weeks from today. The order shall be communicated to the respondent immediately on its passing. The petitioner shall also communicate the computation and basis on which they make the payment. In case the respondent is aggrieved by the same, it shall be open to him to approach the petitioner with regard thereto and to seek any legal redressal. 12. The writ petition is dismissed in the above terms. The petitioner shall ensure that the payments are made to the respondent within two weeks of the passing of the order. Dasti.