CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original
Application No. 694 of 2013
Jabalpur,
this Tuesday, the 19th day of May, 2015
SHRI G. P. SINGHAL,
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
K. L. Phoolmali, S/o late Umarao Phoolmali,
DOB 07.1.1952, R/o JM-70, KIshore Nagar,
Meera Kishan Kunj, District Khandwa – 450001 (MP) - Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri Vijay Tripathi)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India through its Secretary
Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110001.
2. Chief Postmaster Master General, Madhya Pradesh Circle,
Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal – 462012 (MP)
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Khandwa Division, Khandwa (MP) 450001 - Respondents
(By Advocate – Shri Amjad Ahmed, Proxy counsel of Shri A. T.
Faridee)
(Date of reserving order :
14.05.2015)
O R D E R
The applicant has preferred this Original Application for
the following reliefs:
“8(i) Summon the entire relevant record from the possession
of respondents for its kind perusal;
8(ii) Upon holding that reducing the basic pay of the
applicant as Rs.19960/- is bad in law, command the respondents to calculate all
retiral dues and pension of the applicant on the basis of the last basic of Rs.
20,410/-
8(iii) Direct the respondents to revise the pension, DCRG,
leave encashment, commuted value of pension and pay arrears of the aforesaid
amount with 18% interest p.a.;
8(iv) Direct the respondent to repay the amount of DCRG of
Rs.43,790/- to the applicant with 18% interest;
8(v) Any other order/orders, direction/directions may also
be passed.
8(vi) Award cost of the litigation to the applicant.
8(vii) Set aside the order dated 30.10.2012 (Annexure A/1),
order dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure A/2) and order dated 4.4.2012 (Annexure R/7)
with all consequential benefits.”
2. The learned
counsel for applicant submitted that at the time of retirement, applicant was
holding the post of Deputy Post Master, Khandwa Head Office in the Pay Band of
Rs.9300-34800/- + Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- and his basic pay was Rs.20,410/-.
However, while paying him retiral dues, the basic pay has been reduced from
20,410/- to 19,960/-. Further, Rs.43,790/- has been deducted from his DCRG,
without assigning any reason. The applicant was inducted in the cadre of HSG
(II) in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 and posted as Deputy Post Master at
Itarsi Head Office. Thereafter, vide the order dated 12.1.2005, the applicant
was sent on deputation to work as Sub Post Master, Harda in the cadre of HSG
(I) and he was given the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/-. Appointment of applicant
in the cadre of HSG (I) was approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee
(DPC) and orders were issued on 18.8.2005 (Annexure A-3). Thus, there is no
justification for reduction of pay of the applicant for retiral benefits and
deduction of Rs.43,790/- from DCRG.
3. The
respondents, in their reply, have submitted that the applicant was promoted to
HSG (I) grade vide the order dated 18.8.2005, Before that, vide the order dated
12.1.2005, he was posted on HSG (I) grade post of Sub Post Master, Harda Head
Post Office by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hoshangabad. Since the
applicant was working at that time with the office of Sr. Superintendent Post
Offices, Hoshangabad, there was no ground for posting him on deputation basis
in one of its offices. Thus, applicant was not entitled to the pay of HSG (I)
grade on this posting at Harda as he was still in HSG (II) grade. In any case,
applicant was promoted to HSG (II) grade on 29.10.2004 and had qualifying
service of only two months as on 1.1.2005 in that grade, he could not have been
promoted to HSG (I) grade so early as the qualifying service of three years was
required for such promotion. Therefore, when his pension case was prepared, there
was objection in regard to his pay fixation on 17.1.2005 in HSG (I) grade when
he joined at Harda in compliance of order dated 12.1.2005 of SSPO Hoshangabad.
Therefore, applicant’s pay was accordingly refixed and he was grated HSG(I)
grade w.e.f. 23.08.2005 when he was actually promoted to that grade. Thus, due
to correction of his pay fixation w.e.f 17.1.2005, his basic pay at the time of
retirement was changed and applicant has been paid retiral benefits
accordingly. Further, excess salary paid to him during this period has been
recovered from the DCRG. Thus, the OA, being without any merit, deserves to be
dismissed.
4. Heard the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the respective
parties and documents annexed therewith. I have also gone throught the writtern
arguments filled by learned counsel for the respondents.
5. It is
undisputed that the applicant was promoted to HSG (I) grade vide the order
dated 18.8.2005 (Annexure A-3). Before that, he claims to be posted on
deputation basis on a post of HSG (I) grade. However, the order dated 12.1.2005
(Annexure R-1) by which he was posted as Sub Post Master, Harda was issued by
Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Hoshangabad and since the applicant was
already working in his jurisdiction, this posting could not be considered as on
deputation. In-fact, this is simply a posting order on vacant post of Sub Post
Master, Harda on which the applicant was posted on his own cost for which he
may have requested at that time. Thus, applicant was not entitled to get the
pay scale of HSG (I) grade w.e.f. 17.1.2005 on the basis of order dated
12.01.2005 (Annexure R-1). Therefore, respondents are not at fault in re-fixing
his pay, by treating him promoted to HSG (I) grade w.e.f. 23.08.2005. In view
of this correction, basic pay of applicant has been revised and applicant has
been paid all the retiral benefits based on this pay. Thus, the respondents
cannot be faulted in granting retiral benefits to the applicant based on his
revised basic pay of Rs.19,960/- in place of Rs.20,410/-, and no interference
with the orders of respondents in this matter, is justified, Therefore, the
prayer of the applicant in this regard is rejected.
6. So far as
deduction of Rs.43,790/- from the DCRG of the applicant is concerned, this
amount has been deducted without issuance of any show-cause notice to the
applicant. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of
State of Punjab and others etc v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., Civil Appeal
No. 11527 of 2014, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that order, no recovery of
excess payment can be made from retired employees or employee who are due to
retire within one year of the order of recovery. Since recovery of excess
salary has been done after retirement of applicant, such recovery is not in
accordance with law. Therefore, the respondents are directed to refund
Rs.43,790/- deducted from DCRG of the applicant, within a period of 60 days
from the date of communication of this order. However, no interest shall be
payable on that amount.
7. Thus, the
O.A is partly allowed. No order on costs.
