Facts
The applicant, Surjit Singh, joined the Chandigarh Police in 1983 as a Constable, was promoted to ORP Inspector (Group – C), and voluntarily retired on November 1, 2019
Source reference: p. 6, para. 3Prior to retirement, a 'No Due Certificate' and Pension Payment Order (PPO) were issued, and retiral dues were released without objection
Source reference: p. 6, para. 3Chandigarh Administration adopted the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2021, effective January 1, 2016
Source reference: p. 6, para. 3The applicant submitted an option form for revised pay and consequential revision of arrears/retiral benefits
Source reference: p. 6, para. 3Subsequently, Respondent No. 5 (Accountant General) revised the applicant's pay fixation with effect from January 1, 2016 and December 1, 2018, and issued a revised certificate directing recovery of an overpayment of Rs. 1,02,468/- from the applicant's DCRG
Source reference: p. 7, para. 4This amount was deducted without a show cause notice
Source reference: p. 7, para. 4Through an RTI, the applicant discovered an order dated October 19, 2016, where his pay was stepped up effective October 21, 2007, at par with his junior, Sh. Dalbir Singh
Source reference: p. 7, para. 5He also found an order dated April 5, 2023, rectifying the earlier pay step-up and directing recovery of the excess payment
Source reference: p. 7, para. 5The applicant denied misrepresentation and contended that the recovery was imposed after more than three years of retirement, without an opportunity for hearing, and despite a 'No Due Certificate' being issued
Source reference: p. 7, para. 6; p. 8, para. 6The respondents argued that the recovery was justified under Punjab Civil Services Rules due to an error in aligning the date of annual increment after pay step-up, claiming the mistake needed rectification and that the applicant had given an undertaking for recovery upon pay step-up
Source reference: p. 9, para. 8; p. 10, para. 10Respondent No. 5 clarified its role as a Pension Authorizing Authority, implementing orders from parent departments, and not independently deciding on pay fixation or recovery
Source reference: p. 10, para. 11; p. 11, para. 12Issues
1. Whether the recovery of overpayment from the applicants, who are retired Group-C employees, is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable
Source reference: p. 13, para. 18; p. 14, para. 202. Whether the impugned orders directing recovery without issuing a show cause notice or providing an opportunity for hearing are valid
Source reference: p. 7, para. 6; p. 8, para. 6; p. 14, para. 19Law Applied
The court applied the principles established in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih, SCT 2015 (1) 195, which outlines impermissible recoveries from employees, specifically prohibiting recovery from Class-III and Class-IV (or Group 'C' and Group 'D') service employees and from retired employees where the recovery order is issued within one year of their retirement
Source reference: p. 8, para. 7; p. 13, para. 17It also considered the judgment in Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 INSC 497, stating that belated recovery after a long lapse is inequitable and impermissible
Source reference: p. 8, para. 7; p. 13-14, para. 18Additionally, the court noted the DoPT OM dated March 2, 2016, which prohibits recovery from retired employees and Group-C employees, particularly in cases of excess payment due to administrative error
Source reference: p. 8, para. 7The judgment also implicitly relies on the principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement for a show cause notice when civil consequences are involved
Source reference: p. 7-8, para. 6; p. 14, para. 19Reasoning
The court found that the applicants' claims were covered by categories (i) and (ii) of the Rafiq Masih guidelines, as they are retired Group-C employees and the recovery was ordered after their retirement
Source reference: p. 13, para. 18There was no allegation or establishment of fraud, misrepresentation, or fault on the part of the applicants in the erroneous pay fixation; rather, the stepping-up and increment alignment were administrative decisions initiated by the parent department, and the wrong fixation was due to administrative negligence
Source reference: p. 12, para. 16The court noted that the respondents had issued a 'No Dues Certificate' prior to the applicant's retirement, and the rectification surfaced only in 2023
Source reference: p. 7-8, para. 6; p. 12, para. 16The court further observed that the impugned order directing recovery was issued without a show cause notice or opportunity for hearing, which violates principles of natural justice and renders the order bad in law
Source reference: p. 7-8, para. 6; p. 14, para. 19The respondents' argument regarding the undertaking given by the applicant upon pay step-up was implicitly disregarded in light of the categorical prohibitions established by Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel against recovery from retired Group-C employees without their fault
Source reference: p. 10, para. 10; p. 13-14, para. 18Holding
The Tribunal allowed the Original Applications, holding that the recovery from the DCRG of the applicants is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and unsustainable
The impugned orders dated April 5, 2023 (in OA No. 195/2024), December 15, 2023 (in OA No. 197/2024), March 22, 2023 (in OA No. 300/2024), June 29, 2023 (in OA No. 302/2024), and May 26, 2023 (in OA No. 469/2024), to the extent they ordered recovery, were quashed and set aside
Source reference: p. 14, para. 20The respondents were directed to refund the recovered amounts to the applicants, along with interest at the GPF rate from the date of recovery until the date of actual payment, with the exercise to be completed within eight weeks
Source reference: p. 14, para. 20Original Court PDF
Surjit Singh and OthersVs.Chandigarh Administration and Others [OA No. 195/2024, OA No. 197/2024, OA No. 300/2024, OA No. 302/2024 and OA No. 469/2024]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in