Bhakra Beas Management Board vs Balvir Singh

Mahavir Singh Chauhan, J.—Balbir Singh (Respondent No. 1 herein) was allowed proficiency step up increment vide order dated 23.06.1999 and was further allowed to get 2nd such increment after completion of 16 years of service, which was granted to him on completion of requisite period of service. But, vide notice dated 18.01.2008 (Annexure P7 attached with the Civil Writ Petition), he was called upon to show cause as to why the amount so paid to him be not recovered. His reply to the show cause notice was found to be unsatisfactory, therefore, vide order dated 26.02.2008, an amount of Rs. 24,299/- paid as excess was ordered to be recovered from him in monthly installments of Rs. 1,000/- each. He approached this Court by way of CWP No. 5825 of 2008 which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.12.2013.

To challenge order dated 04.12.2013, Bhakra Beas Management Board has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

It is argued by the learned counsel that the 1st respondent was allowed to draw the increment after completion of 16 years of service, inadvertently, as regulations of the appellant-Board do not permit any such increment to its employees, the learned Single Judge has committed an error by restraining the appellant-Board from effecting recovery of the amount of Rs. 24,299/- from the 1st respondent, even though, the said respondent is not entitled to retain that amount. To support this contention, learned counsel relies upon Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others,

Facts are not in dispute. However, it is not borne out from the record that the 1st respondent secured the proficiency step up by misrepresentation or has been responsible for it in any manner. Nobody appeared before the learned Single Judge to contest claim of the 1st respondent. Still the learned Single Judge noticed judgments rendered in CWP No. 9680 of 2011 ''Harish Chander Vs. The State of Punjab and others'' decided by this Court on 18.11.2013, Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttrakhand and others (supra), State of Punjab and others Vs. Krishan Kumar Bansal and others, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 24607 of 2010.

Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount under reference is liable to be recovered from the 1st respondent as he was not entitled to draw the increment under proficiency step up and the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttrakhand and others (supra) has held that recovery of amount already received by an employee by mistake can be effected from him at any time, is of no consequence because subsequent to the judgment in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttrakhand and others (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has upheld order dated 16.03.2010 passed by this Court in CWP No. 4671 of 2010 by observing as under:-

It was neither the pleaded case of the petitioners before the trial Court nor it was argued that the respondent was, in any way, responsible for any mistake committed by the concerned authority in the fixation of his pay. Therefore, the recovery sought to be effected from him as wholly arbitrary, unjustified and violative of the rules of natural justice. With the above observation, the SLP is dismissed.

It is also relevant to point out here that in the aforesaid judgment, Hon''ble Supreme Court, in addition to the observation referred to above, also observed as under:-

(iv) The petitioners have neither averred nor any document has been placed on record to show that the State Government had initiated action against any of the officers responsible for committing mistake or negligence in fixing the pay of the respondents. This being the position, there is no justification for making recovery from the pay or pension of the respondents. The judgment relied upon by Shri Nayyar is clearly distinguishable on facts and the ratio of the judgments in Shyam Babu Verma and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others, is clearly attracted in these cases.

During the course of hearing, we put a very pointed question to the learned counsel as to what action has been taken by the appellant-Board against the official/officer/authority of the Board, who is/are responsible for the continuation of proficiency step up increment to the 1st respondent after completion of 16 years of service. The learned counsel, however, has decided to evade an answer to the aforesaid question.

It is not the case of the appellant that the 1st respondent misrepresented the facts before the concerned authorities or has otherwise been instrumental as regards grant of proficiency step up increment and its continuance after sixteen years of service.

In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.