Sita Rani v. Union Of India And ORS
!
"#$ $%&'&() * + ,&#""(& $#&#&($- .$-'/'
(&( (0&""(0#1$-'
$'2(0$(#'
!
"#$%&#"'(")*#+
" #$%& #$%&'
!
( ") )
!
" #$%& #$%&'
(
'( , ))))* ,- )*#%
+ )
)
,- (./0 1 ,
2. -3
'
'
!
45 )*#6 #!
5 #+6 )
- - 1 2'
!
!
! 56&$
02'
) 0'
02'
7" $8 !
)
) ) 5222&$
9 ) ! !
! !
!
!
!
: )
) (
(
!
) !
(
*
) ! )
( 2+ 0223
#$%&
! )
!
)
!
! ,
4
/ ;
,.
,- (./0 8 1 ,
2
1 0+ 2'
026
$ "12. As far as the undertakings are concerned then it fall for consideration can those be used against employees falling in direction (ii) of Rafiq Masih as interpreted in Jagdev Singh where the issue involved was of an employee opting out of revised pay scale while furnishing undertakings. Undertakings given at the time of pay revision are different in character from grant of an additional increment because in revision of pay scales employees reap benefits differently and, therefore, are allowed by rules to exercise options depending on variable factors such as dates when increments fall due and things like that.
The additional increment here was given as a one(time measure but with a recurring effect increasing pay but not the pay scale and that is why undertakings given at the time of revision of pay scales would be binding as a person should not be seen to shift his stand according to the vagaries of pay revision. If direction (iii) operates then by the very nature of things direction (i) would be accompanying right and when the two are read together recoveries are in my view impermissible in law.
13. The undertakings given by the petitioners at Annex R(3/2 and R(3/3 [with the written statement] in 2008 was even when the additional increments wrongly conferred were being paid since 2003 till retirement. What occasioned the demand of furnishing undertaking by the petitioners was the pay
% revision in the year 2008 in implementation of the Shetty Commission when a decision was taken to give benefits retrospectively from 2003 and not 2005. In any case, at the time undertakings were given, parties did not contemplate that they will ever be used against them since the petitioners were allowed to retire peacefully without initiating any action for recovery. Once they passed the age of superannuation then to disturb them may be a travesty of justice. However, since the grant of additional increments was indisputably wrongful with no clarity on the subject prior to retirement, the benefit inflating the pay wrongly will not percolate to increase service pension, allowances and retiral benefits which are open to alteration. This order only makes impermissible recovery from 2003 to 2012 in view of the law in direction (iii) in Rafiq Masih."
1 4
.:!5
-3 4
.:! <
! !
! 1 4
.:!
!
(
)
)
)
(
)
) 0222&$
) 5222&$
)
'222&$
")
)
: )
) )
222&$
) 0222&$
)
)
) ,
) ) 0222&$
)
"3 *4
,,, kanchan
√ Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No √ Whether reportable : Yes/No