Subsequent amendments cannot retrospectively validate time-scale benefits granted without prescribed qualifications.

The petitioner, a Class III employee initially appointed as Assistant Grade III, was granted a second time scale of pay under the Government circular dated 24.01.2008.

Upon subsequent scrutiny, the respondents found that she had not passed the prescribed accounts-training examination, which was treated as a qualification for promotion to the relevant higher post and, consequently, for grant of the second time scale.

The authorities withdrew the benefit and ordered recovery of ₹2,43,888 through orders dated 12.03.2018, 20.03.2018, 09.04.2018 and 11.09.2018.

The petitioner challenged those orders under Article 226, contending that no show-cause notice or hearing had been provided, that she had made no misrepresentation, and that the amendment dated 04.09.2017 to Rule 15(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Class IV Ministerial Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 2000, removed the qualification-related objection.

The respondents defended the recovery on the basis that the benefit had been granted contrary to the applicable eligibility conditions and submitted that the petitioner had sought deductions of ₹20,000 per month towards recovery.

1. Whether the petitioner was substantively entitled to the second time scale of pay despite not having passed the prescribed accounts-training examination

2. Whether the amendment dated 04.09.2017 could operate retrospectively to validate the petitioner’s earlier grant of the second time scale

3. Whether recovery of the excess payment was impermissible because the petitioner had made no misrepresentation or fraud and had not been afforded a prior show-cause notice and hearing

4. Whether the impugned orders suffered from jurisdictional error, perversity or manifest illegality warranting interference under Article 226

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principle that a benefit granted under executive instructions cannot create an indefeasible right where the employee does not satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed by the governing service rules or binding Government instructions.

The Court relied on the Government circular dated 24.01.2008, under which grant of the time scale was subject to fulfillment of the qualifications prescribed for promotion to the relevant post.

It further held that a subsequent statutory amendment ordinarily operates prospectively unless it is expressly or by necessary implication retrospective, and cannot reopen concluded pay-fixation decisions absent such retrospective intention.

The Court distinguished substantive entitlement from recovery of an erroneous payment and observed that absence of fraud or misrepresentation is relevant to the equities of recovery but does not establish entitlement to an otherwise inadmissible benefit.

It also referred to Chandi Prasad v. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417, cited by the respondents in support of recovery of payments to which an employee was not legally entitled.

The Court found that the second time scale was conditional upon compliance with the applicable qualification requirements and that the petitioner had not passed the accounts-training examination prescribed for promotion to the relevant post.

The initial administrative grant could not override the service rules or convert an erroneous payment into a vested entitlement; therefore, the petitioner could not claim continuation of the benefit merely because the error originated with the department.

The amendment dated 04.09.2017 was subsequent to the relevant period, and the petitioner produced no material showing that it was retrospective or intended to validate past cases.

Similarly, the circular dated 31.03.2016 could regulate the manner of recovery but could not confer substantive entitlement to the second time scale.

Although the Court acknowledged that there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, it treated that circumstance as relevant only to the equities of recovery and not as a basis for declaring the original benefit lawful.

On the material before it, the Court found no jurisdictional error, perversity or manifest illegality in the impugned orders.

The challenge to the recovery of ₹2,43,888 and to the orders dated 12.03.2018, 20.03.2018, 09.04.2018 and 11.09.2018 was rejected.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.