Veena Sapra vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Others

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The petitioner, who was posted as Upper Division Clerk in the office of Deputy General Manager, OP Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Faridabad, has sought quashing of impugned order dated 1.2.2008 (Annexure P5), whereby the Deputy General Manager/Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Faridabad, had ordered that scale of the petitioner be re-fixed and a recovery of Rs. 3,30,236/- be effected from the salary of the petitioner.

A perusal of impugned order (Annexure P5) reveals that the petitioner was required to pass Departmental Accounts Examination within a period of five years of her appointment as Upper Division Clerk in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Nigam"). As per the Government instructions, the petitioner was to be paid four increments after appointment and further increments were to be allowed after passing of the Departmental Accounts Examination. Since the petitioner had not passed the said examination, four increments granted to her at the time of her appointment w.e.f. 1.6.1979 were sought to be withdrawn.

The date of birth of petitioner is 25.10.1950. Thus, she has attained the age of superannuation.

Briefly stated, after the appointment, the petitioner on 1.2.1976, was granted annual increment of Rs. 8/- and her pay was fixed at Rs. 158/-. On 15.2.1977, another increment was granted and her salary was fixed at Rs. 166/-. After the revision of pay scale, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 540/- w.e.f. 1.6.1979. On 6.12.1990, the pay was again revised and on 7.4.1991, the salary of the petitioner was re-fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. While giving the benefit of revision, it was specifically stated therein that annual increment will not be allowed to the official, who has not passed the Departmental Accounts Examination. On 15.5.1996, the petitioner was granted second Higher Standard Pay Scale and her salary was revised in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 and the same was fixed at Rs. 1,760/- w.e.f. 13.3.1995. In the year 1996 when the revision of the pay scale took place on the recommendations of the Pay Commission, salary of the petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 4625-6000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996.

It is the case of the respondents that when the scale was revised, inadvertently four increments were granted to the petitioner and since 1.6.1980 till 31.12.2007, therefore, she has drawn excess pay and dearness allowance to which she was not entitled to. Admittedly, the increments were awarded to the petitioner under the bonafide mistake by the employer when her salary was being re-fixed. There was no misrepresentation or deception committed by the petitioner and the increments were granted without any fault of the petitioner.

The present writ petition was listed along with Civil Writ Petition No. 2799 titled as "Budh Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.", decided on 16.8.2010, wherein the Full Bench of this Court has held that in case the amount has been paid to an employee under bonafide mistake and there is no fault, misrepresentation or deception on the part of the employee, such an amount cannot be recovered.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 1.2.2008 (Annexure P5) is quashed. It is further directed that no amount shall be recovered from the petitioner, which was paid to her by granting four increments, under the bonafide mistake. However, her pay be re-fixed as per her entitlement.