High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/12201/1999disposed of

Basant Singh Etc. v. Haryana State Etc.

2023-11-17Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi9 pages

# "

$ %

"&'

() "'* + ( (,'-.'/ 01

!+& 34 (&4'/+

'& ('/+ 6'/+7+ 2&&'

() /8 (&4'/+

'+9('&+ :!;

2 2 2 2

2 2 2 $ ;%

! " # #$

% % & '

(

% )

% ! " # #$

% # ) - - .

) - - # 0

& % '+

( "

+ '"#

'"$

% #$ 1 "22 $ 0

& &

3 & ) 5

% &

% 0 4

& % %

& &

3 & ) 5

3 & ) 5 % & &

"(9) This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered.

This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess."

0 4

)

& ( "

& +

( "

+ '"#

'"$

( "

! %

& %

% &

# ) - - .

) - -

% ,

& ,

# ) - - % %

# ) - -

) - -

"! '#7 %

"7! '#2 % " " "226

0 4

/ %

& % && ""

) %

)&&

* % &

3 & ) 5

!"# $ % % & '( "

* &

" 5. The main question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in equating the posts of JDOs with CTOs, and in fixing the pay scales of JDOs equivalent to that of CTOs, in utter disregard of the legal position settled by this Court in catena of decisions to the effect that the Courts should not interfere with the complex issues of evaluating the nature of duties 3 and responsibilities of posts, and of fixing the pay scales, which task otherwise is best done by the expert bodies like the Pay Commission.

9. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, it deserves to be noted that the power of judicial review of the High Courts in the matter of classification of posts and determination of pay scale is no more res integra. It has been consistently held by this Court in plethora of decisions that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay

scale for a given post and the interference of the Court was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.

10.

xxx xxx xxx xxx "18. The first question regarding entitlement to the pay scale admissible to Section Officers should not detain us longer. The answer to the question depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done by Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission.

They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the court should normally accept 1 1989(1) SCC 121 5 it. The court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration."

17. The powers of judicial review in the matters involving financial implications are also very limited. The wisdom and advisability of the Courts in the matters concerning 6 (2009) 15 SCC 705 8 the finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party.

18. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal and the High Court had committed gross error in interfering with the pay scales recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission and accepted by the appellant for the posts of JDOs and CTOs, and in upgrading the pay scale of JDOs making it equivalent to the pay scale of CTOs." "#

9+ &

: & ) - -

) - - /

) - - *

% &&

* % &

% &

& &

, &

"6 5

& ,

& "7

# ) - - .

) - - "8 5

; 11. It is submitted that the further revision of the pay scale of the post of General Foreman was rightly made by virtue of Finance Department letter dated 23.08.1990 (Annexure P:1) from 1400:2600 to 1640:2900 as this post is a promotional post to the post of Four Colour Machine Operator which the petitioners at Sr. No. 1, 2 and 4 are holding. It is submitted that the petitioners at Sr. No. 3 and 5 to 19 are holding the post of Two Colour Machine Operator which is a feeder post of Four Colour Machine Operator meaning thereby this post is feeder post to the feeder post of General Foreman. It is also stated that duties and responsibilities of General Foreman and that of the petitioners are quite different as the former supervises the work and performance of the petitioners who operate the machines.

Since the nature of duties of the post of General Foreman are of superior in nature i.e. supervisory capacity as against of operation of machines by the petitioners, the pay scale of General Foreman was rightly further revised by the Government and as such the petitioners are not entitled to the same pay scale.

Government and until and unless it is discriminatory or unreasonable cannot be questioned and in the present case same was done on the basis of justification the post of General Foreman being the promotional one as well as carrying the superior and supervisory the nature of duties." "1 *

"2 -

# /

& (,'-.'/ 01

$ 2 2 2% harsha "

< . = <