Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rangrao s/o Mersing Jadhav, was appointed as a Peon on 08.11.1983 and superannuated on 31.08.2017 as Junior Administrative Officer (Superintendent). He filed a writ petition on 09.04.2018 challenging an order dated 31.01.2017 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded (respondent No.2), which revised his pay and directed recovery of Rs.3,46,931/- along with interest. The petitioner contended that he had no role in the fixation of his pay scale as per the 5th and 6th Pay Commission's recommendations; the Block Development Officer was responsible for preparing the fixation. He argued that the impugned order was passed without any notice to him, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents argued that the petition was barred by limitation as it was filed after more than a year from the order, and that the recovery was justified due to excess payment. The court, after hearing both sides, observed that the impugned order was passed without notice to the petitioner, which is a clear violation of natural justice. The court also noted that the petitioner had no role in the pay fixation and there was no allegation of misrepresentation. Relying on the principle that recovery from an employee who has not misrepresented is impermissible, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to refund the recovered amount of Rs.3,46,931/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of recovery till payment, within eight weeks. The court did not accept the limitation objection as the recovery was from pension and the petition was filed within a reasonable time.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Fixation - Recovery - The petitioner, a retired employee, challenged the recovery of Rs.3,46,931/- from his pensionary benefits on the ground that the pay fixation was done by the Block Development Officer without his involvement and the impugned order was passed without notice to him. The court held that recovery cannot be ordered from an employee who has not misrepresented and where the error is not attributable to him, and that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 1-10) B) Limitation - Challenge to Recovery Order - The petition was filed on 09.04.2018 challenging an order dated 31.01.2017. The court considered the delay and held that since the recovery was sought to be effected from pension, the petition was maintainable and the delay was not fatal. (Paras 3, 10) C) Natural Justice - Notice - The impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court quashed the order on this ground alone, as it violated the principles of natural justice. (Paras 5, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 31.01.2017 revising the pay of the petitioner and directing recovery of Rs.3,46,931/- along with interest is sustainable in law, especially when the petitioner had no role in the pay fixation and the order was passed without notice to him.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 31.01.2017 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,46,931/- recovered from the petitioner along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of payment, within eight weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Recovery from retired employee without notice
- pay fixation error not attributable to employee
- principles of natural justice
- limitation period for challenging recovery order
