- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ram Chandra Singh & Ors. v. State Of Jharkhand & Ors.
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants were employed as untrained Draftsman under the Directorate of Land Records and Survey in the pay scale of Rs. 1320-2040. They received a first time bound promotion on 1.7.1989 and were drawing pay in the next higher grade of Rs. 1400-2300. The report of the (variously described in the opinion as the) Fifty/Fifth Pay Revision Committee came into force from 1.1.1996 and provided revised replacement scales: Rs. 1320-2040 was revised to Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 1400-2300 to Rs. 4500-7000.
The appellants' pay was fixed at Rs. 4500-7000 from 1.1.1996 due to an error. When this mistake was discovered the Settlement Officer, Dhanbad (respondent No. 5), issued orders on 28.6.2001 correcting the fixation and directing refund of the excess amounts paid. The appellants challenged that order in Writ Petition (S) No. 3632 of 2001; the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 14.3.2002 and directed the writ petitioners to refund the excess in twelve installments. The appellants then filed the present appeal challenging those orders.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellants, who held substantive posts of Draftsman (scale Rs. 1320-2040) but were drawing pay in the higher grade (Rs. 1400-2300) by time bound promotion, were entitled on 1.1.1996 to the revised replacement scale Rs. 4500-7000 or only to Rs. 4000-6000 applicable to the substantive post/cadre.
- Whether the excess amounts paid as a result of the erroneous fixation in the higher revised scale could be recovered from the appellants.
- Whether the principle in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 (preventing recovery where an office mistake confers a benefit and the employee is not at fault) applied to this case.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The appellants had been working as Draftsman since 1972 and had received a time bound promotion in 1989 to the pay scale Rs. 1400-2300.
- On 1.1.1996, when the Pay Revision Report became applicable, their pay was rightly fixed in the corresponding revised scale of Rs. 4500-7000 because they had been getting the higher grade pay post-promotion.
- The order directing recovery of the excess amount paid from 1.4.1997 to 28.2.2001 was illegal and unjustified.
- Counsel relied on Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, where the Apex Court held that amounts paid due to an office mistake (and not due to any misrepresentation by the employee) may not be recoverable from the employee.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any specific arguments advanced by the respondent parties in opposition.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 | The principle that where a higher pay scale or benefit is given due to an office mistake and not by any misrepresentation or fault of the employee, recovery of the excess amount may not be permissible. | The court considered this precedent but held it inapplicable to the present facts because the appellants' pay had been fixed contrary to the Government resolution and the error in fixation was rightly corrected with directions for recovery. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the matter by distinguishing the appellants' substantive post from the grade they were drawing pay in due to time bound promotion:
- The appellants held the substantive post of Draftsman in the scale Rs. 1320-2040, though by virtue of a first time bound promotion they were receiving pay in the higher grade Rs. 1400-2300. The court treated the promotion pay as a higher grade within the same cadre, not a change in substantive post.
- The Pay Revision Committee's report provided common replacement scales for the cadre and, under the Committee's recommendations and the Government resolution dated 8.2.1999, the revised scale must be applied to the substantive post held by the employee as on the relevant date (given in the opinion as 11.1.1996 / 1.1.1996). Therefore the appellants were entitled to the replacement scale applicable to the substantive post of Draftsman (Rs. 4000-6000), not the replacement scale applicable to the higher cadre/post of Head Draftsman (Rs. 4500-7000).
- Because the appellants were still substantively Draftsman (the opinion states the substantive scale as Rs. 1320-2000 in one place), their pay had been wrongly fixed at Rs. 4500-7000 contrary to the Government resolution; once detected, the Settlement Officer corrected the fixation and directed recovery of the excess amounts.
- The court considered Sahib Ram but found it distinguishable. In Sahib Ram the excess benefit resulted from an administrative relaxation and the employee was not at fault; the Apex Court stayed recovery there. In contrast, in the present case the fixation was contrary to the Government resolution and therefore the correction and recovery were permissible. The court further observed that the benefit of the Fifth Pay Revision Committee's recommendations was not denied to the appellants; the error pertained solely to incorrect pay fixation.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is dismissed (the court found no reason to interfere with the order dated 10.8.2001 and the learned Single Judge's order dated 14.3.2002). The dismissal was ordered without costs.
Implications:
- The direct effect is that the correction of the appellants' pay fixation and the directions for recovery of the excess payments (including the installment scheme directed by the Single Judge) stand upheld.
- The court treated the matter as one of correct application of replacement pay scales to the substantive post/cadre as on the relevant date; it did not extend or create a new principle of law beyond applying the Government resolution and distinguishing the cited precedent. No broader precedent was announced beyond the facts and reasoning in this opinion.
1. By the Court:— Admittedly, the appellants were working on the post of untrained Draftsman in the pay scale of Rs. 1320-2040/- under the Directorate of Land Records and Survery. They were given first time bound promotion on 1.7.1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-.
2. In the Fifty Pay Revision Committee's Report, which came into force with effect from 1.1.1996, the pay scale of Rs. 1320-2040/- was revised to Rs. 4000-6000/- and the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- was revised to Rs. 4500-7000/-.
3. It appears that the revised scale of pay of the appellants was fixed on the basis of the Fifth Pay Revision Committee's Report at Rs. 4500-7000/- from 1.1.1996 When the said mistake was detected, the Settlement Officer, Dhanbad, the respondent No. 5 passed orders on 28.6.2001 rectifying the said mistake and fixing the pay scale of the appellants and also directing for refund of the excess amount paid to them on account of wrong fixation of pay in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-. The appellants challenged the said order in WP (S) No. 3632 of 2001 in this Court, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 14.3.2002 with a direction to the writ petitioners to refund the excess amount paid, in twelve installments.
4. The appellant have, therefore, filed the present Appeal, challenging the said order.
5. Mrs. M.M Pal, counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were working on the post of Draftsman since 1972. They were given time bound promotion in the year 1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- and as such on 1.1.1996, when the Fifth Pay Revision Committee's Report was made applicable, their pay was rightly fixed in the corresponding revised scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- and, therefore, the order of recovery of the excess amount paid as per the aforesaid revised scale from 1.4.1997 to 28.2.2001 was illegal and unjustified.”
6. Mrs. Pal placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, wherein it was held that if benefit of higher pay scale was given not on account of any misrepresentation made by the person concerned, but by mistake committed by the office, for which he cannot be held to be at fault, the said amount may not be recovered from him.
7. In our view, the appellants were holding substantive post of Draftsman in the scale of pay of Rs. 1320-2040/-, but on account of first time bound promotion they were getting the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-, which was merely the next higher grade in the same cadre. However, as per the recommendation of the Fifth pay Revision Committee's Report, the appellants were entitled to the revised scale of pay against their existing scale means the present scale applicable to the post held by them as on 11.1.1996 in the substantive capacity. The common replacement scale as per the report of the Pay Revision Committee was given for the cadre and as such the appellants were entitled for the replaced scale of pay of the cadre of Draftsman. They cannot claim the replaced scale of higher cadre/post of Head Draftsman.
8. It is not in dispute that the scale of pay of Head Draftsman was Rs. 1400-2300/- and the revised scale whereof was Rs. 4500-7000/-. The appellants are still holding the substantive posts of Draftsman the scale of pay whereof was Rs. 1320-2000/- and, therefore, as per Government Resolution dated 8.2.1999, they were entitled for getting their scale fixed in the existing scale to the post they were holding in the substantive capacity as on 1.1.1996 So they were entitled for the revised scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- and not the scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-, which was wrongly fixed.
9. It is not correct to say that the benefit given to the appellants by time bound promotion was sought to be recovered for them.
10. In our view, the ratio of the decision in Sahib Ram, (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, because here the pay scale of the appellants were wrongly fixed in the scale of Rs. 4500/- 7000/- which was contrary to the Government resolution and as soon as it was detected, the fixation of pay was revised and direction for recovery of the excess amount paid to them in installments was rightly given. In Sahib Ram's case (supra) the Principal of the College where the: appellant was working as Librarain had given him the upgraded scale of Rs. 700-1600/- in relaxation of the prescribed qualification and the Government thereafter directed the Principal to withdraw the said scale, allowed to the appellant and in that connection, direction for recovery of the excess amount received by him was given and accordingly the Apex Court held that the appellant could not have been held to be at fault in receiving the said excess amount and, therefore, recovery of the payment already made was stayed. The benefit of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision Committee was hot denied to the appellants, in any manner. Such error committed in pay fixation was rightly Corrected and the direction is for recovery of the excess amount received by the appellants on account of the aforesaid mistake was also rightly given.
11. We find no, reason to interfere with the order dated 10.8.2001 (Annexure 5) as well as the order dated 14.3.2002 passed by the learned single Judge. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed, but without costs.
Alert