P.H Reddy And Others v. National Institute Of Rural Development And Others

Order

1. These appeals are directed against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. When the matter was listed before a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court, the Bench felt that there is some inconsistency between the two earlier judgments of this Court — Director General of Posts v. B. Ravindran (1997) 1 SCC 641 and ESI Corpn. v. M.P John (1999) 1 SCC 663. The Court referred the matter to a three-Judge Bench, and that is how the matter is before us. The disputes centre around the question as to the fixation of pay of an employee on retirement from defence services and re-employed in a civil post. As it appears from the records of these appeals on retirement from army, the appellants were re-employed in the National Institute of Rural Development. On re-employment, their pay had been fixed at a particular sum. But in the year 1992 by order dated 28-8-1992 on the basis of the relevant government circulars applicable for fixation of the pay, the pay was refixed by the appropriate authority, and direction was issued for recovery of excess amount already paid to these appellants. Assailing the same, the appellants had moved the High Court in a writ petition, but the writ petition was not entertained on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, and the appellants were directed to approach the appellate authority. In accordance with the said direction of the High Court, the appellants reapproached the appellate authority, but the appellate authority affirmed the order of the original authority dated 28-8-1992, and therefore the appellants were compelled to file the fresh writ petition in the High Court. A learned Single Judge by order dated 13-6-1995 disposed of the writ petition quashing the order of refixation of salary. The employer being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge approached the Division Bench in appeal. The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal, and hence the present appeals on grant of special leave.

2. Mr Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that this Court having held in Director General of Posts v. B. Ravindran (1997) 1 SCC 641 that the fixation of the salary on re-employment under the basis of relevant rules and regulations cannot be altered to his detriment by a subsequent administrative circular, and therefore, the order of the appropriate authority fixing the salary could not have been set aside and the pay could not have been refixed, and therefore the learned Single Judge was right in his conclusion and rightly interfered with the said order of refixation. Mr K. Ram Kumar appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that both the circulars, one of the year 1958 and the other of the year 1983 have been duly considered in the later case of ESI Corpn. v. M.P John (1999) 1 SCC 663 and it has been held that the two circulars operate in two different fields, and therefore, an ex-serviceman, who is re-employed will get the minimum pay scale in addition to his full pension as an ex-serviceman from the military authority, and this being the position the appropriate authority, if had fixed the pay on an erroneous view, was entitled to refix the same, and therefore the Division Bench rightly set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We have ourselves examined the two office memorandums, one dated 25-11-1958 and the other is of 8-2-1983, and we do not see any infirmity or inconsistency with those circulars relevant in the matter of fixation of pay of an employee, who on retirement from the defence service, has been re-employed in a civil post. In our view, therefore the judgment of this Court in ESI (1999) 1 SCC 663 represents the correct view, and consequently the order of refixation done by the appropriate authority, in the case in hand, does not require any interference, but the appellant employees, who had been in receipt of a higher amount on account of erroneous fixation by the authority should not be asked to repay the excess pay drawn, and therefore that part of the order of the authority is set aside. The direction of the appropriate authority requiring reimbursement of the excess amount drawn is annulled.

3. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.