Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 328 (JHR)

K. N. Pathak v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-02-07

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S. N. Pathak, J. – The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the order dated 19.05.2016 (Annexure-5), whereby and whereunder, the respondent-CCL is deducting Rs. 6,000/- per month each from the salary of these petitioners from May, 2016 onwards. 2. The short facts lying in narrow compass is that the petitioner No.1 was appointed on 12.05.1989 as Clerk-III and posted at Central Workshop at Barkakhana. The Petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 19.04.1989 as Clerk Grade-III and posted at Central Workshop at Barkakhana. It is the case of the petitioners that they have lower basic pay than their juniors Sri P.K. Dhar, Senior Clerk and late Sri Sajjan Singh (Junior Clerk), although they were promoted to a higher post before July, 2011. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners represented before the respondents regarding the pay anomaly in pay scale granted on 21.04.2010. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No. 2 vide Office Order dated 07.12.2010 as contained in Memo No. 2139 stepped up the pay scale of the petitioners at par with junior Sajjan Singh, Senior Clerk on account of anomaly in pay arising out of promotion. According to the implementation Instruction No. 23 of NCWA-VIII and later on 30th June, 2014, the petitioners were given the pay scale in view of the aforesaid guideline. It is the specific case of the petitioners that though they were entitled for the higher pay scale, which was given to them by the order of Manager, Administration, CRS, Barkakhana vide order dated 07.12.2010, but thereafter, the Deputy General Manager of Central Workshop of Barkakhana vide his letter dated 19.05.2016 without any notice or show cause, passed an order of recovery from the salary of these petitioners to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- each per month. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners represented before the respondents authorities regarding the illegal order issued by the Deputy General Manager, CCL. But no heed was paid to their representation and as such, they have constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3. Mr. Jay Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the order of recovery has been passed without issuance of any show cause notice, which was compete violation of cardinal principles of natural justice. But no heed was paid to their representation and as such, they have constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3. Mr. Jay Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the order of recovery has been passed without issuance of any show cause notice, which was compete violation of cardinal principles of natural justice. Learned counsel justifying the Annexure-3, submits that the payscale of the petitioners were enhanced in view of the rules and guidelines and as such, no occasion for passing the order of recovery vide Annexure-5, which is illegal and arbitrary and is fit to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners places heavy reliance on the Judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Rafiq Masih Vs. State of Punjab (white washer) & Ors , (2015) 4 SCC 334 and argues that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by that judgment. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. D.K. Chakarbarty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners were not entitled for the pay-scales, which have been given to them erroneously and as such, there was no illegality or infirmity in passing the order of recovery dated 19.05.2016. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioners have been wrongly receiving the higher pay-scales, which was recoverable, therefore, the recoverable amounts have been directed to be recovered from the petitioners as well as the action of the respondents cannot be construed to be illegal or unjustified. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the order of recovery is not in accordance with law and is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. In my opinion order of recovery, which entails civil and evil consequences has been passed in utter disregard to the cardinal principles of natural justice. Admittedly, the petitioners are Grade-I Clerk, working in the Central Workshop, CCL Barkakhana. The Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Rafiq Masih Vs. State of Punjab (white washer) & Ors , (2015) 4 SCC 334 has clearly laid down a guideline for recovering amount from the employees, working on Class-III & IV posts. Admittedly, the petitioners are Grade-I Clerk, working in the Central Workshop, CCL Barkakhana. The Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Rafiq Masih Vs. State of Punjab (white washer) & Ors , (2015) 4 SCC 334 has clearly laid down a guideline for recovering amount from the employees, working on Class-III & IV posts. The petitioners were given the enhanced pay-scales in the year, 2010 and recovery was made in the year, 2016 after six long years, without affording any opportunity of hearing and without any show cause notice to them, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and settled principle of law, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of recovery dated 19.05.2016 (Annexure- 5) is illegal and arbitrary and as such, is hereby quashed and set aside. The amount, if not recovered, would not be recovered from the petitioners and if already recovered, the said amount shall be refunded to the petitioners, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Resultantly, this writ petition stands allowed.