Interest be paid on wrongly recovered sum

Interest be paid on wrongly recovered sum

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
OA No.178/PB/2010
Date of order:22.10.10

Coram: HON BLE SMT. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON BLE SHRI KHUSHIRAM, MEMBER (A)

1. Mohan Singh son of S.Gurdial, Postal Assistant, Moga Head Post Office, Moga.

2. Baldev Raj son of Dina Nath, Postal Assistant, Moga, Head Post Office Moga.

3. Sita Devi wife of Balwinder Kumar Dharia, Postal Assistant Moga Head Post Office, Moga.

4. Satwant Kaur wife of Nachhattar Singh Sekhon, PA,, Faridkot Head Post Office, Faridkot.

5. Balwant Kaur wife of Darshan Singh, PA, Faridkot Head Post Office, Faridkot.

6. Sukhdev son of Mangat Ram, PA, Postal Assistant Faridkot Head Post Office, Faridkot.

7. Sunita Rani wife of Jiwan Parkash, Postal Assistant, Faridkot Head Post Office, Faridkot.

...Applicants

Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. The Postmaster General, Punjab Region, Chandigarh.

3. The Director of Accounts (Postal) Kapurthala.

4. The Postmaster, Faridkot.

5. The Postmaster Moga.

6. The Superintendent Post Offices, Faridkot Division, Faridkot.

7. Ms. Mandep Kaur, Postal Assistant, Faridkot.
Respondents.
For the applicant Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate
For the respondents Mr. Suresh Verma, Advocate.
O R D E R
Hon ble Mr. Khushiram, Member (A):

The applicants in this case are Postal Assistants working in the Postal Department in the scale of Rs. 975-1540. Their claim is that on implementation of recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, their pay was fixed at Rs. 4400/- with next date of increment falling in the moth of November. However, the pay of their junior Ms. Mandeep Kaur, respondent No.7, whose next date of increment happened to be Ist January, was fixed at Rs. 4500/- under provisions of Note -2 below Rule 7 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, which provided as under:
Note:- Where the increment of a Government servant falls on Ist day of January, 1996, he shall have option to draw the increment in the existing scale or the revised scale.

As the next date of increment of the applicants was Ist November, 1996, it was ante-dated to Ist January, 1996 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 and their pay was fixed at Rs. 4500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 at par with the junior, respondent No.7. They continued to draw the pay so fixed from January, 1996 till June, 2006, when an audit objection was raised by the Audit party. Consequently, their date of increment was postponed from Ist January to Ist November and the over-payment made to them was recovered from them. The applicants made representations to restore their pay as fixed earlier, but their request was turned down and, therefore, they filed this OA claiming the following reliefs.
a) That joint application against common order Annexure A-2 may kindly be allowed.
b) Respondents Audit para of inspection dated 12/22.6.2006 (Annexure A-1) and order dated 6.3.2009 (Annexure A-2) may be quashed and set aside being illegal, arbitrary and violative of statutory rules and the principle of natural justice;
c) Respondents may be directed to restore date of increment to applicants from the same date as was admissible to junior Respondent No.7 in accordance with the provision contained in proviso-2 below Rule 8 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 with all consequential benefits i.e. refund of amount recovered with interest @ 10% per annum.
Respondents have filed written statement, wherein they have stated that the cases of the applicants were re-examined by the legal cell and it was found that provisions of Rule 8 of CCS (Revised pay) Rules 1997 and the relief claimed by the applicants in this petition has been granted to them vide orders dated 10.8.2010, copies of which are placed at Annexures R-1 and R-2. So, the respondents have claimed that nothing survives in the petition and it has been rendered infructuous now.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It is seen that the pay of the applicants had been fixed rightly earlier by ante-dating their date of increment from Ist November to Ist of January under provisions of the CCS ( Revised Pay) Rules, 1997,but on an objection raised by the audit party, it was ordered to be re-fixed by taking their date of increment as Ist November and recoveries were made from them. This obviously is against the provisions of Rule 8 of the Pay Rules aforesaid, which provided as under:
8. Date of next increment in the revised scale.
The next increment of a Government servant whose pay has been fixed in the revised scale in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 shall be granted on the date he would have drawn his increment, had he continued in the existing scale;

Provided that in case where the pay of a Government servant is stepped up in terms of Note 6 or Note 9 to sub rule (1) and also second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, the next increment shall be granted on the completion of qualifying service of twelve months from the date of the stepping up of the pay in the revised scale.

Provided further that in cases other than those covered by the preceding proviso, the next increment of a Government servant, whose pay is fixed on the Ist day of January, 1996 at the same stage as the one fixed for another Government servant junior to him in the same cadre and drawing pay at a lower stage than his in the existing scale, shall be granted on the same date as admissible to his junior if the date of increment of the junior happens to be earlier.

Since the pay of respondent no.7, who was junior to the applicants was fixed higher than that of the applicants as her next date of increment was January, 1996, while that of the applicants fell in the month of November, applicants date of increment was required to be advanced to Ist of January under the second proviso of Rule 8 ibid and it was, in fact, rightly done earlier. However, under wrong interpretation of the rule-position, pay of the applicants fixed earlier was revised and recoveries were made from them in installments from the year 2006 onward. No doubt, the mistake has been rectified now by correctly fixing the pay of the applicants under orders at Annexures R/1 and R/2 passed in August, 2010, but the applicants have been harassed a lot and they have been denied the use of the money which legitimately belonged to them. Therefore, the ends of justice would be met if interest is ordered to be paid to the applicants on the recovered sums. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 is directed to pay interest to the applicants on the recovered amount @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery till refund of the same. This direction be complied with within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. O.A. stands disposed of accordingly.
No costs.

(KHUSHIRAM) (SHYAMA DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)