Govt. Employee Entitled To Terminal Benefits Despite Post Reversion: Delhi HC Quashes Demand For Refund Of Differential Higher Amount Paid
The Delhi High Court quashed the demand for the refund of the differential higher amount paid to a government employee stating that his terminal benefits would be fixed by granting him the benefits of the said higher scale.
The employee, who was initially appointed as a Senior Research Assistant and later re-designated as an Economic Officer in the project appraisal division, had been promoted to the post of Research Officer on an ad hoc basis in 1996. Despite the ad hoc nature of this promotion, the employee continued to serve in this capacity for over 14 years, receiving the corresponding higher salary.
A Division Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed, “we set aside the impugned order and allow the writ petition by directing that the demand made by the respondents for the refund of the differential higher amount paid to the petitioner for the period between 13.07.2010 to 06.03.2013 would stand quashed. We, further direct that though taking into account his long service of more than 14 years in the post of Research Officer, the terminal benefits of the petitioner, including pension will be fixed by granting him the benefits of the said higher scale which he was drawing as a Research Officer for more than 14 years, he will not be entitled to the pay of the Research Officer from which post he stands reverted”
Advocate Shiva Sharma represented the petitioner, while CGSPC Vivek Goyal appeared for the respondents.
The Centre decided to revert Makwana to his original post of Economic Officer, leading to a reduction in his pay. Additionally, the authorities sought to recover the excess salary paid during his tenure as Research Officer. The employee challenged this reversion and the consequent recovery orders, seeking restoration of his previous pay and protection from the recoveries.
The employee’s application was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). He then approached the High Court, which took into account his long service in the higher post without any fault or misrepresentation on his part.
The High Court noted that while the reversion to his earlier post was not in dispute, the long duration of service in the higher post warranted special consideration. It was noted that the employee had served as a Research Officer for more than 14 years without any complaints and was nearing superannuation.
“We cannot lose sight of the admitted position that the petitioner had worked on a higher post for more than 14 years during which period, admittedly, not only he was drawing a higher salary but all throughout there were no complaints of any kind against him at any stage whatsoever. In these circumstances, coupled with the fact that now he is at the verge of superannuation, the respondents ought to consider releasing of his terminal benefits by taking into account the higher salary which he was drawing during those 14 years when he was working as a Research Officer,” the Court remarked.
Drawing from the precedent set in the Supreme Court case of Badri Prasad v. Union of India (2005) 11 SCC 304, the Court pointed out the need to balance equities. The Court observed that the employee’s terminal benefits, including pension, should be calculated based on the higher salary he received as a Research Officer.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition.
Cause Title: Kishor Kumar Makwana v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3961-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Shiva Sharma
Respondents: CGSPC Vivek Goyal; Advocates Gokul Sharma and Sanjeev Joyti