The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Sunil Kumar Singh W.P.(S). No. 1362 of 2024 ---------- Versus ………… Petitioner 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Dist.-Ranchi 3.The Director General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dist.-Ranchi 4.The Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Govt. of ………… Respondents Jharkhand, Dist.-Ranchi ------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shanjay Kumar Dubey, Advocate : Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, AC to GP-II ---------- 13/ 30.07.2024 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 3914 dated 04.05.2023, by which the pay fixed vide earlier memo no. 1001 dated 1.2.2023 has been revised by reducing the same from Rs.76,500/- to Rs.72,100/-. Challenge has also been thrown to the order contained in memo no. 1001 dated 01.02.2023 whereby the basic pay on grant of 1st MACP has been reduced from Rs. 81,200/- to 76,500/-. 3. Shorn of unnecessary facts, the petitioner joined the service on 04.8.1999 as Sub Inspector of Police in the erstwhile State of Bihar. After bifurcation, his service was allocated to the Successor State of Jharkhand. He was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police with effect from 20.11.2020. The petitioner was also extended the benefit of 1st MACP with effect from 07.07.2018 in the pay scale of Pay Band-II (9300- 34800) with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 31.01.2023. After retirement, vide Memo No. 1001 dated 01.02.2023, the basic pay of the petitioner was reduced from Rs. 81,200/- to 76,500/-. The petitioner represented before the 1 respondents to rectify the same. Though the office order contained in memo no. 1001 dated 01.02.2023 was modified by another departmental order contained in memo no. 3914 dated 04.05.2023, by which, again the pay fixation was done by reducing the same from Rs. 76,500/- to Rs. 72,100/- and an amount of Rs. 2,47,820/- has been shown to be excess payment, which the petitioner was directed to deposit the same. Aggrieved by the said reduction of basic pay, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexures-6 and 7 are not tenable in the eyes of law on the ground that after retirement i.e. on 31.01.2023 pay fixation was done and thereafter re-fixation of pay vide Annexure-6, page-57 was done on the ground that petitioner was not entitled for the earlier pay-fixation at Annexure-3. Learned counsel further submits that even the respondent-authorities have passed an order of recovery of Rs.2,47,820/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Harayana & Ors. Vs. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 and submits that if there is any anomaly in pay- fixation it was open for respondents to rectify the same but without following the cardinal principle of natural justice and without adhering to the provision of putting the employee on notice. The same has been done and as such the action of the employer is not tenable in the eyes of law. Further emphasis has been laid down on legal propositions that after retirement, no recovery from the pensionary benefits of the retired employee is permissible. Learned counsel further submits that in the instant case a pre-condition has been imposed that unless the excess amount paid to the petitioner is deposited in the treasury, he will not be entitled for pension as well as retiral benefits. Learned counsel further submits that the said legal proposition as relied upon by the respondents is unknown to the service jurisprudence. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order. After retirement of the petitioner 2 admittedly pay-fixation was done, thereafter it was found that there is anomaly in the pay-fixation and as such the same was rectified and re- fixation of pay was done. Since petitioner has received excess amount of Rs.2,47,820/-, a direction was given to refund the amount and retiral benefits shall be paid upon recovery of the amount. Justifying the impugned order leaned counsel submits that rightly there is a direction to refund the amount of Rs.2,47,820/- which has been received by the petitioner in excess than his entitlement. However, learned counsel has not denied that before passing of the order, petitioner was not put to notice or the respondents have adhered to the cardinal principle of natural justice. 6. Having gone through the rival submission of the parties, across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that impugned orders at Annexures-6 and 7 are not tenable in the eyes of law for the following facts and reasons; (i) Petitioner has retired on 31.01.2023 thereafter pay fixation was done by way of Annexure-3. Certainty after two months of the retirement, re-fixation was done on the ground that there was anomaly in the pay fixation. (ii) The law is very clear that the employer is at liberty to rectify the anomaly at any point of time, provided the employee is noticed or the cardinal principle of natural justice has been followed. From the counter-affidavit nowhere it has been reflected that petitioner was put on notice and the respondents have adhered to cardinal principle of natural justice. (iii) After retirement the employee cannot be subjected to recovery from his retiral benefits. In the instant case pre- condition has been imposed that after depositing the amount of Rs.2,47,820/-, the petitioner shall be entitled for retiral benefits. The pre- condition is imposed is unknown to service jurisprudence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) has held that no recovery can be made from the retiral benefits of an employee without adhering to the cardinal principle of natural justice. (iv) In absence of any notice to the petitioner, the impugned orders are not tenable in the eyes of law and hence the same is fit to be quashed and set aside accordingly, 3 Annexures-6 and 7 are hereby quashed and set aside. 7. 8. Resultantly the instant writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to fix and pay the pension to the petitioner and release the entire retiral benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not received the travelling allowances, the same shall also be considered in accordance with law and paid to him as per his entitlement. Rohit/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 4