- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Others v. Sujatha Vedachalam (Smt) And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The opinion concerns two civil appeals (CA Nos. 6423 and 6422 of 1998) involving respondents who were employees in different offices of the Accountant General. In CA No. 6423 of 1998, the respondent was a Senior Accountant in the office of the Accountant General, Maharashtra (Nagpur), and sought a transfer for personal reasons to the Accountant General, Karnataka (Bangalore). The transfer was granted on stipulated terms accepted by the respondent, including a condition requiring her to “technically resign” and join as a direct recruit to a lower post of Clerk. After transfer, her pay was fixed at a higher amount than appropriate; later, by order dated 1-12-1995, her pay was re-fixed to a lower stage and recovery of excess pay was ordered. She challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which allowed her application; the appellants’ writ petition was dismissed.
In CA No. 6422 of 1998, the respondent (an Accountant in the Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad) similarly sought and obtained a transfer to the Accountant General, Karnataka (Bangalore) on conditions including technical resignation, reversion to Clerk, and joining as a direct recruit. Her pay as Clerk was initially fixed higher; later it was found that it should have been fixed lower, leading to orders for re-fixation and recovery of excess amounts. She challenged these orders before the CAT, which allowed her application; the appellants’ writ petition was dismissed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, following a transfer accepted on terms requiring technical resignation and appointment as a direct recruit to a lower post, the authorities were entitled to re-fix the respondents’ pay to the correct lower stage and order recovery of excess salary paid due to erroneous fixation.
- Whether the CAT’s orders (and the subsequent dismissal of the appellants’ writ petitions) preventing such refixation and recovery were liable to be set aside in light of controlling Supreme Court decisions.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Comptroller & Auditor General of India v. Farid Sattar (2000) 4 SCC 13 | The opinion states that the present appeals are decided “for the reasons stated” in this decision. | The Court relied on the reasons in this precedent to set aside the impugned orders and judgments and to allow both appeals. |
| Chandan Saha v. Union of India, Special Leave Petition No. 9324 of 1996, decided on 25-4-1996 | The opinion treats this as a supporting decision relevant to the outcome. | Along with Farid Sattar, it supported setting aside the impugned decisions and allowing the appeals. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court’s analysis is concise. It states that, “for the reasons stated” in Comptroller & Auditor General of India v. Farid Sattar (decided the same day) and in Chandan Saha v. Union of India (SLP No. 9324 of 1996), the impugned orders and judgments under appeal must be set aside. The opinion does not independently restate those reasons within this text.
On the issue of recovery of excess pay, the Court nonetheless provides a specific direction on implementation: while permitting recovery, it directs that recovery may be made in “easy instalments,” spread over fifteen years or until the date of retirement, whichever is earlier.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED; IMPUGNED ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS SET ASIDE. Both civil appeals were allowed, and there was no order as to costs.
As a direct consequence, the respondents became subject to the refixation of pay and the recovery of excess amounts paid due to erroneous fixation. However, the appellants were directed to effect recovery through easy instalments over up to fifteen years or until retirement (whichever occurs earlier). The opinion does not discuss broader implications beyond applying the cited Supreme Court decisions to dispose of these appeals.
V.N Khare, J.— The respondent in CA No. 6423 of 1998 was working as a Senior Accountant in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 in the Office of the Accountant General, Maharashtra at Nagpur and was drawing a pay of Rs. 1260 per month. Subsequently for personal reasons the respondent sought transfer to the Office of the Accountant General, Karnataka at Bangalore. Her request for transfer was accepted on certain terms and conditions stipulated by the appellants and the same were accepted by the respondents. One of the conditions of the transfer was that the respondent had to technically resign from the post which she was holding and she was to join as direct recruit to a lower post of Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. On acceptance of the terms and conditions the respondent was transferred as a Clerk to the Office of the Accountant General, Karnataka at Bangalore. After the transfer to a lower post, her pay was erroneously fixed at Rs. 1250 per month. Subsequently when the mistake came to light, her pay was fixed at a stage of Rs. 1070 by order dated 1-12-1995. The order for recovery of excess pay to the respondent was also passed. The respondent challenged the said order before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the respondent. The writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.
2. The respondent in CA No. 6422 of 1998 was working as Accountant in the Office of the Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. Subsequently, the respondent sought transfer from the Office of the Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh to the Office of the Accountant General, Karnataka at Bangalore. The said transfer was accepted with certain terms and conditions to the effect that in case of such a transfer, she had to technically resign from the post of Accountant and accept the reverted post of Clerk and had to join as a direct recruit. After transfer to the post of Clerk in the Office of the Accountant General, Karnataka at Bangalore the pay of the respondent was fixed at Rs. 1260 per month. Subsequently it was found that the pay of the respondent on reversion ought to be fixed at Rs. 1090. Consequently, orders for refixation of pay and recovery of excess amount were issued. The respondent challenged the said orders by means of original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the application of the respondent and the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.
3. For the reasons stated in Comptroller & Auditor General of India v. Farid Sattar (2000) 4 SCC 13 decided today and decision of this Court in Special Leave Petition No. 9324 of 1996 titled Chandan Saha v. Union of India decided on 25-4-1996 the impugned orders and judgments under appeal are set aside. Both these appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, so far as recovery of excess pay paid to the respondents is concerned, the appellants may recover the said amount in easy instalments which may be spread over for fifteen years or till the date of retirement, whichever is earlier.
Alert