The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the employer is not barred from correcting pay fixation and pension where employees were wrongly granted dual benefits, but recovery of excess payments from Group-C and Group-D employees, particularly after long periods, would be impermissible in law.
The court was hearing writ petitions filed by the UT of Jammu & Kashmir challenging orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby recoveries were set aside and directions were issued restraining the authorities from altering pay and pension of the employees in matters relating to grant of benefits under SRO-59 and SRO-14.
A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed, “The respondents were erroneously extended dual benefits under both SRO-59 and SRO-14… there is no legal justification to divest the employer of its right to rectify pay scales… However, excess payments made to Group-C and Group-D employees over long periods cannot be recovered, as such recovery would be iniquitous and impermissible in law.”
The writ petitions arose out of several original applications filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal by employees of different departments who challenged orders directing recovery of excess amounts and re-fixation of their pay as well as pension. The Tribunal had set aside the recovery orders and directed the authorities not to deduct any amount from pay or pension and to restore earlier benefits.
The authorities contended that the employees had been granted benefits under SRO-59 of 1990 and later also availed in-situ promotions under SRO-14 of 1996, resulting in simultaneous grant of overlapping benefits which caused recurring loss to the State exchequer. According to the petitioners, such dual benefit was impermissible and required correction through re-fixation of pay and pension.
The employees argued before the Tribunal that Government Instruction No.1 to Article 242 of the Civil Service Regulations barred the authorities from examining correctness of emoluments beyond 24 months preceding retirement and, therefore, the pay and pension already fixed could not be reopened. The Tribunal accepted the contention and restrained the authorities from effecting recovery. Aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal, the Union Territory filed the present writ petitions before the High Court.
The Court observed that the restriction applies to cases of incorrect pay fixation or clerical error, but does not cover situations where employees were granted benefits to which they were never legally entitled. It was observed that the expression 'correctness of emoluments' refers to individual errors in fixation of pay scale or arithmetical mistakes, and not to cases where a class of employees received unauthorised dual benefits under different schemes. Therefore, the employer is not barred from examining such irregularities even beyond the 24-month period, the court explained.
The court noted that SRO-59 provided for revised pay scales, while SRO-14 introduced a scheme of time-bound in-situ promotions and both schemes had the same object of granting higher pay scales, and employees could not legally receive benefits under both simultaneously. The court also noted that the respondents had been granted higher pay scale under circulars issued in 1993, which were traceable to SRO-59, and, thereafter, also received promotions under SRO-14, resulting in unintended dual benefit.
Follow us
