15 May 2024 Employee Related >> Corporate Law  

In a recent judicial decision of Kishor Kumar Makwana vs Union of India & Another under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The tribunal had dismissed the Petitioner's plea regarding pay reduction and recovery of excess salary. The case centred around the Petitioner, who had a prolonged tenure as a Research Officer before being reverted to the position of Economic Officer.

Facts:

The Petitioner, initially hired as a Senior Research Assistant and later redesignated as an Economic Officer, was promoted on an ad hoc basis to the role of Research Officer on 08.04.1996. This promotion, initially intended for six months, was extended for over 14 years based on the Petitioner's performance. However, on 13.07.2010, the authorities decided to revert the petitioner to the substantive post of Economic Officer. Subsequently, an order dated 06.03.2013 was issued reducing the Petitioner's pay to that of a Senior Research Assistant, citing overpayment during the extended tenure as a Research Officer. 

Arguments Presented:

The Petitioner contested these actions, seeking relief on multiple grounds:

• Pay Protection: The Petitioner argued for protection of the salary received during the extended tenure as a Research Officer, emphasizing the long duration and performance record.
• Recovery of Excess Payment: It was argued that the recovery of excess salary paid during the period of continued service as a Research Officer after reversion was unjustified, as the Petitioner had not misrepresented any facts.
• Terminal Benefits: The Petitioner sought fair calculation of terminal benefits, including pension, based on the higher pay received during the extended service period.

In contrast, the Respondents defended their actions by asserting that the promotion to Research Officer was always intended as ad hoc and temporary. They justified the recovery of excess salary paid during the extended period as appropriate under the circumstances of reversion.

Conclusion:

After considering the arguments from both sides, the High Court arrived at a balanced decision:

• Pay Protection: While acknowledging that reversion generally does not warrant pay protection, the Court cited the Petitioner's extensive tenure and performance as significant factors. Drawing from legal precedents such as the Badri Prasad case, the Court decided to protect the pay for the purpose of calculating terminal benefits.
• Recovery of Excess Payment: The Court ruled against the recovery of excess salary paid during the Petitioner's continued service as a Research Officer after reversion. It emphasized that the Petitioner had not engaged in any misconduct to warrant such recovery.
• Terminal Benefits: Terminal benefits, including pension, were ordered to be calculated based on the pay scale of a Research Officer that the Petitioner had received for over 14 years. This decision aimed to ensure fair compensation for the Petitioner's service on a higher post over an extended period.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the tribunal's order regarding the recovery of excess payment and directed the authorities to reconsider terminal benefits calculations accordingly. This judgment underscores the principles of equity and fairness in employment disputes, ensuring that employees receive just compensation commensurate with their service and responsibilities.

  Constitution of India, 1950