Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Premchand Nathu Patil, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 16.06.1989 in a secondary school run by respondent No. 5 institute. He possessed B.A. B.Ed. qualifications. His appointment was approved and confirmed. In 1996, his pay scale was fixed as per the 5th Pay Commission. On 16.06.2001, upon completing 12 years of service, the management granted him the benefit of time bound/first ACPS with effect from 16.06.2001. By order dated 12.04.2008, his pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500. On 12.06.2009, the 6th Pay Commission was made applicable with effect from 01.01.2006. At that time, the petitioner was drawing basic pay of Rs. 7700. By order dated 12.09.2011, his pay was fixed at Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400. Meanwhile, he was transferred from secondary school to Jr. College on 16.09.2006 and was given the same pay scale. He had also passed M.Ed. in May 2006. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Education passed an order on 18.08.2016 reducing his pay and pay scale and directing recovery of excess payment. The Principal of the College of Education (respondent No. 6) also passed an order on 04.07.2017 implementing the recovery. The petitioner challenged these orders. The court noted that the petitioner had not misrepresented any facts and the mistake in pay fixation was on the part of the authorities. The orders were passed without any show cause notice to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice. The court held that recovery of excess payment from a government servant is not permissible when there is no misrepresentation or fraud by the employee. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to restore the petitioner's pay and pay scale as earlier fixed and to refund any amount recovered. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Fixation - Recovery of Excess Payment - No Misrepresentation - The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, was granted higher pay scale due to wrong fixation by the authorities. The court held that recovery of excess payment is not permissible when the employee has not misrepresented or committed fraud, and the mistake was on the part of the employer. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Natural Justice - Show Cause Notice - The orders reducing pay and directing recovery were passed without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 2, 10) C) Service Law - Pay Fixation - Time Bound Promotion - The petitioner was granted time bound promotion under ACPS, but later the pay was reduced without proper justification. The court set aside the orders and directed restoration of pay. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner due to wrong pay fixation is justified when there is no misrepresentation or fraud by the employee.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 18.08.2016 and 04.07.2017 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner's pay and pay scale as earlier fixed and to refund any amount recovered from the petitioner. Rule is made absolute in those terms. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Pay fixation
- Recovery of excess payment
- No misrepresentation
- No fraud
- Government servant
- Natural justice
- Show cause notice
