it2025_00387 — Reduction of pay due to re-fixation of pay of the employee without notice is not permissible. In the present case, the functional upgradation to SAG Grade of the Applicant herein, which resulted in reduction in pay thereby reduction in pension without notice to him is incorrect. Hence, the order relating to the recovery of an amount of ₹ 81,683 is set aside and the recovered amount should be refunded with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1-8-2013 till its realization. However, th

IT Rules

Reduction of pay due to re-fixation of pay of the employee without notice is not permissible. In the present case, the functional upgradation to SAG Grade of the Applicant herein, which resulted in reduction in pay thereby reduction in pension without notice to him is incorrect. Hence, the order relating to the recovery of an amount of ₹ 81,683 is set aside and the recovered amount should be refunded with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1-8-2013 till its realization. However, the reduction in pay is confirmed, which will be paid to the Applicant herein from March, 2015 onwards — The chunk provides the conclusion of the case, stating that the recovery of an amount of 81,683 from the applicant's pension without giving him a chance to be heard was arbitrary and unjust. However,... — Facts: The Applicant herein, retired as JT, Director-General (ARCH) on 31-7-2009. At the time of his retirement, he was drawing a Pay of ₹ 50,360 and his monthly pension was fixed at ₹ 30,180. After retirement, the Applicant was granted Non-Functional Upgradation to SAG Grade in the Pay Band IV (₹ 37,400-67,000) plus Grade Pay of ₹ 10,000 in the pre-revised pay scale of ₹ 18,400-22,400 with effect from 3-1-2006 as he opted for fixation with effect from 3-1-2006. However, without any notice to him, R-4, Chief Manager, Centralized Pension Processing Centre revised / reduced last basic pay drawn by the Applicant to ₹ 48,630 resulting in the monthly pension to ₹ 29,315. Against that, the Applicant submitted a representation on various grounds. Based on those grounds, the Applicant prayed to set aside the order passed by the Respondents dated 19-7-2013, the date of reduction of pay from ₹ 50,360 to ₹ 48,630 and monthly pension from ₹ 30,180 to ₹ 29,315 per month. He also prayed for staying the impugned order, dated 19-7-2003 till the disposal of this OA. He also prayed to grant increments of upgradation to the Applicant and a direction to re-assess his basic pay and pension. He also prayed for return of the amount recovered by Order, dated 19-7-2003. The Applicant, a Joint Director-General with effect from 9-10-2006 was also granted Non-Functional Upgradation with effect from 3-1-2006. As he has not opted for fixation of his pay from the date of next increment, his pay was fixed with effect from 3-1-2006. Non-submission of his option is not denied. Hence his fixation of pay stood as on 3-1-2006. When Non-Functional upgradation was granted to him in SAG after his retirement, he exercised his option which is reproduced in the judgment. As per this option, he opted for fixation of his pay from the date of accrual of his next increment on 1st July, 2006 in the lower grade of old post in the scale of ₹ 14,300-18,300. As he was granted pay with effect from 3-1-2006, his pay as opted could not be fixed with effect from 1-7-2006 as he completed 5 months, 27 days only i.e., less than six months. When that is so, his next increment was due only on 1-7-2007 and accordingly his pay and pension was revised, which shows reduction. The above action of the Respondents is in accordance with CCS (Revised Pension) Rules. But there is nothing on record to show that the above action is taken after giving an opportunity to the Applicant as such information is not available on record. No record is available to grant Non-Functional Upgradation with effect from 1-7-2006 after hearing the Applicant views. Hence, it may be presumed that the principles of Audi Alterem Partem or Principles of Natural Justice is not followed in letter and spirits. No reason for such action taken is indicated in the reply. If so, it may be said that principles of natural justice is violated amounting to violation of Fundamental Rights as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution. During argument, the Applicant brought out the judgments of various High Courts on the point of violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal considered those judgments. In the first case of Raghunath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand and others [ 2014 (1) Service Law Reporter, Jharkhand High Court ], decided on 28-6-2012, it was held that no recovery can be ordered from him in that case after his retirement as no opportunity or personal hearing, recording recovery was informed to the Applicant therein, to get his views before effecting recovery. In the case of D.G. Solanki v. State of Gujarat and others [ 2014 (6), Service Law Reporter (Gujarat High Court) decided on 18-7-2013 ], it was said that even though, there was no violation of principles of natural justice and also no misrepresentation on the part of the Applicant therein; the Applicant having already retired, it would be too harsh on the retired Government employee to face recovery and that there shall be no recovery from the petitioner of amount paid to him under order of granting higher pay scale. In the case of Laxman Prasad Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and others [ 2008 (5), Service Law Reporter 485 (Full Bench) ], dated 11-10-2007, it was held that no fraud or misrepresentation was attributed to the employee and that since no hearing was given to him or proceeding conducted while he was in service, the amount cannot be recovered from the employee. In the present case, the pay and pension of the Applicant was reduced after grant of Non-Functional Upgradation to him after his retirement with retrospective effect. The Applicant has not committed any fraud or misrepresentation while submitting the option as seen from records. As no opportunity was given to the Applicant before effecting recovery, it is violation of natural justice. In the case of Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India and others, recovery of higher scale payment after an elapse of 11 years not only affected the petitioners financially but even his seniority. Hence it was held that the recovery of excess amount paid is not just and proper.

IT Rules

Reduction of pay due to re-fixation of pay of the employee without notice is not permissible. In the present case, the functional upgradation to SAG Grade of the Applicant herein, which resulted in reduction in pay thereby reduction in pension without notice to him is incorrect. Hence, the order relating to the recovery of an amount of ₹ 81,683 is set aside and the recovered amount should be refunded with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1-8-2013 till its realization. However, the reduction in pay is confirmed, which will be paid to the Applicant herein from March, 2015 onwards — The chunk provides the conclusion of the case, stating that the recovery of an amount of 81,683 from the applicant's pension without giving him a chance to be heard was arbitrary and unjust. However,... — Facts: The Applicant herein, retired as JT, Director-General (ARCH) on 31-7-2009. At the time of his retirement, he was drawing a Pay of ₹ 50,360 and his monthly pension was fixed at ₹ 30,180. After retirement, the Applicant was granted Non-Functional Upgradation to SAG Grade in the Pay Band IV (₹ 37,400-67,000) plus Grade Pay of ₹ 10,000 in the pre-revised pay scale of ₹ 18,400-22,400 with effect from 3-1-2006 as he opted for fixation with effect from 3-1-2006. However, without any notice to him, R-4, Chief Manager, Centralized Pension Processing Centre revised / reduced last basic pay drawn by the Applicant to ₹ 48,630 resulting in the monthly pension to ₹ 29,315. Against that, the Applicant submitted a representation on various grounds. Based on those grounds, the Applicant prayed to set aside the order passed by the Respondents dated 19-7-2013, the date of reduction of pay from ₹ 50,360 to ₹ 48,630 and monthly pension from ₹ 30,180 to ₹ 29,315 per month. He also prayed for staying the impugned order, dated 19-7-2003 till the disposal of this OA. He also prayed to grant increments of upgradation to the Applicant and a direction to re-assess his basic pay and pension. He also prayed for return of the amount recovered by Order, dated 19-7-2003. The Applicant, a Joint Director-General with effect from 9-10-2006 was also granted Non-Functional Upgradation with effect from 3-1-2006. As he has not opted for fixation of his pay from the date of next increment, his pay was fixed with effect from 3-1-2006. Non-submission of his option is not denied. Hence his fixation of pay stood as on 3-1-2006. When Non-Functional upgradation was granted to him in SAG after his retirement, he exercised his option which is reproduced in the judgment. As per this option, he opted for fixation of his pay from the date of accrual of his next increment on 1st July, 2006 in the lower grade of old post in the scale of ₹ 14,300-18,300. As he was granted pay with effect from 3-1-2006, his pay as opted could not be fixed with effect from 1-7-2006 as he completed 5 months, 27 days only i.e., less than six months. When that is so, his next increment was due only on 1-7-2007 and accordingly his pay and pension was revised, which shows reduction. The above action of the Respondents is in accordance with CCS (Revised Pension) Rules. But there is nothing on record to show that the above action is taken after giving an opportunity to the Applicant as such information is not available on record. No record is available to grant Non-Functional Upgradation with effect from 1-7-2006 after hearing the Applicant views. Hence, it may be presumed that the principles of Audi Alterem Partem or Principles of Natural Justice is not followed in letter and spirits. No reason for such action taken is indicated in the reply. If so, it may be said that principles of natural justice is violated amounting to violation of Fundamental Rights as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution. During argument, the Applicant brought out the judgments of various High Courts on the point of violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal considered those judgments. In the first case of Raghunath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand and others [ 2014 (1) Service Law Reporter, Jharkhand High Court ], decided on 28-6-2012, it was held that no recovery can be ordered from him in that case after his retirement as no opportunity or personal hearing, recording recovery was informed to the Applicant therein, to get his views before effecting recovery. In the case of D.G. Solanki v. State of Gujarat and others [ 2014 (6), Service Law Reporter (Gujarat High Court) decided on 18-7-2013 ], it was said that even though, there was no violation of principles of natural justice and also no misrepresentation on the part of the Applicant therein; the Applicant having already retired, it would be too harsh on the retired Government employee to face recovery and that there shall be no recovery from the petitioner of amount paid to him under order of granting higher pay scale. In the case of Laxman Prasad Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and others [ 2008 (5), Service Law Reporter 485 (Full Bench) ], dated 11-10-2007, it was held that no fraud or misrepresentation was attributed to the employee and that since no hearing was given to him or proceeding conducted while he was in service, the amount cannot be recovered from the employee. In the present case, the pay and pension of the Applicant was reduced after grant of Non-Functional Upgradation to him after his retirement with retrospective effect. The Applicant has not committed any fraud or misrepresentation while submitting the option as seen from records. As no opportunity was given to the Applicant before effecting recovery, it is violation of natural justice. In the case of Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India and others, recovery of higher scale payment after an elapse of 11 years not only affected the petitioners financially but even his seniority. Hence it was held that the recovery of excess amount paid is not just and proper.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text