Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ajabrao Rambhau Patil, was appointed as Technical Assistant on 16.02.1982 in the office of respondent no.3. The post was later abolished and he was absorbed as Civil Engineering Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.1989. He passed Sub Overseer examination on 18.05.1985 and was promoted as Sub Overseer by deemed date of promotion as on 18.05.1985. He was granted financial upgradation under Time Bound Promotion scheme on completion of 12 years of service w.e.f. 01.10.1994 and second Time Bound Promotion w.e.f. 01.10.2006. He was promoted as Junior Engineer on 02.07.2007 and retired on 31.08.2017. Upon submission of pension papers, the Accountant General formed an opinion that his services from initial appointment could not be counted for Time Bound Promotion and that the benefits were erroneously granted. Consequently, an order dated 24.01.2018 was passed directing recovery of Rs.2,58,711/- from his retirement benefits. The petitioner challenged this order before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his Original Application No.69 of 2018 on 05.11.2019. The High Court considered the issue of whether recovery of excess payment made to a retired employee under a scheme can be ordered in absence of any misrepresentation or fraud. The Court noted that the petitioner had no role in the decision to grant Time Bound Promotion benefits and that the recovery was ordered without any notice or opportunity of hearing. Relying on principles of natural justice and the fact that the employee had retired, the Court held that recovery cannot be sustained. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and the recovery order, directing respondents to refund the recovered amount within eight weeks and revise pensionary benefits accordingly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recovery of Excess Payment - Time Bound Promotion - Recovery from retired employee without misrepresentation - The petitioner, a retired Junior Engineer, was granted financial upgradation under Time Bound Promotion scheme. After retirement, recovery of Rs.2,58,711/- was ordered from his pensionary benefits on ground that his initial service from 16.02.1982 could not be counted for Time Bound Promotion. The Tribunal upheld the recovery. The High Court set aside the recovery, holding that in absence of any misrepresentation or fraud by the employee, recovery of excess payment made under a scheme cannot be ordered after retirement, especially when the employee had no role in the decision to grant the benefit. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Natural Justice - Recovery without notice - The recovery order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The High Court held that such recovery without notice violates principles of natural justice. (Para 8) C) Service Law - Pensionary Benefits - Protection of retirement benefits - The Court directed that the recovered amount of Rs.2,58,711/- be refunded to the petitioner within eight weeks, and his pensionary benefits be revised accordingly. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether recovery of excess payment made to a retired employee under Time Bound Promotion scheme can be ordered in absence of any misrepresentation or fraud by the employee
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 05.11.2019 and the recovery order dated 24.01.2018. Directed respondents to refund the recovered amount of Rs.2,58,711/- to the petitioner within eight weeks and revise pensionary benefits accordingly.
Law Points
- Recovery of excess payment from retired employee without misrepresentation
- Time Bound Promotion scheme
- Financial upgradation
- Pensionary benefits
- Natural justice
