Punjab National Bank v. Sunehra Singh

Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Arvind Rajotia, Advocate, for the appellant *** GURDEV SINGH, J. C.M.No. 14936-C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons disclosed in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the period for making up the deficiency in the Court fee is extended by a fortnight. Application is disposed of accordingly. C.M.No. 14938 C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons disclosed in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No.5073 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Application is disposed of accordingly. C.M.No. 14937 C of 2010 Heard. Allowed subject to all just exceptions C.M.No. 14939 C of 2010 and RSA No. 5073 of 2010 The appellant/defendant has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.2.2009 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, vide which he dismissed the first appeal preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 8.3.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Karnal, decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant to effect the recovery of excess payment made under the garb of the orders dated 9.2.2004 and

24.3.2004 passed by its Regional Manager. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from refixing his basic pay illegally unlawfully and against the provisions of law from `1085/- to `980/- and from recovering the alleged excess amount paid to him after 13.3.1992 from the terminal dues payable to him. He pleaded in his plaint that he is ex- serviceman and joined the defendant – bank after retirement. His salary was fixed at `1085/- per month in terms of guidelines of the Government prevalent at that time. Though his record remained unblemished and he is going to retire within a period of month or two, yet the bank in view of letter dated 24.3.2004 is adamant to re-fix his basic pay at `980/- w.e.f

7.5.1988 and to recover the amount paid in excess after 13.3.1992 from the Regular Second Appeal No.5073 of 2010 (O&M) -3- terminal dues payable to him. This act of the bank is totally unwarranted and unconstitutional. Some other employees of the bank filed a writ petition in this Court which was accepted and the order re-fixing their basic pay was declared illegal, null and void and against the rules of natural justice. The bank preferred SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been dismissed. The bank is again adamant to re-fix his basic pay knowing fully well that the order has already been declared illegal, null and void. The bank has no right to re-fix his basic pay. The suit was contested by the bank. In the written statement, it has been admitted that the plaintiff joined this bank in his capacity of ex- serviceman and his salary was fixed at `1085/-. Taking into account the guidelines issued by the Government of India in the year 1984 and that as per the revised guidelines of the year 1994, the same is being refixed at `980/-. The other contentions made in the plaint were denied and it has been pleaded that the Government circulated the guidelines vide circular No.953 for the pay fixation of ex-serviceman, who joined the bank or or after 1.7.1983. As per that circular, the basic pay of the plaintiff come to `980/-. While deciding the writ petition this Court left it open to the bank to proceed afresh keeping in view the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, show cause notice was given to the plaintiff to show cause as to why his basic pay should not be fixed at `980/-, as calculated by the bank after taking into account the revised guidelines. The pay has been refixed after issuance of that notice. He was treated at par with the other similarly situated employees. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and they were Regular Second Appeal No.5073 of 2010 (O&M) -4- called upon to produce their evidence in support of their respective cases. After taking into consideration the evidence, so produced by them and hearing counsel on their behalf, the learned trial court recorded findings on the issues and partly decreed the suit for permanent injunction, as aforesaid. I have heard counsel for the defendant. It has been submitted by counsel for the defendant that the present case is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2009(3) SCT 333( Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others). According to him, three distinct cases were enumerated in the said judgment and the case of the plaintiff is covered by the cases mentioned in category-II. It was as a result of the bona fide mistake committed by the bank that the benefit of the protection of his pay was allowed and in view of the letter, subsequently issued by the Government of India, that benefit was withdrawn and as such, any amount paid to him, in excess, is liable to be recovered. It is not the case of the defendant, as pleaded in the written statement or projected in view of the evidence produced, that the excess payments were made to the plaintiff under some bona fide mistake. It was on account of the change in the policy, contained in different letters issued by the Government of India, from time to time, that the benefit given to the plaintiff earlier was withdrawn. His case is squarely covered by the judgments relied upon by the lower courts i.e. Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana 1995(1) Services Cases today 668 and Union of India v. M. Bhaskar and others 1996(4) Services Cases Today 56. In view of the above discussion, I conclude that no Regular Second Appeal No.5073 of 2010 (O&M) -5- substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. December 23, 2010 tripti (Gurdev Singh) Judge