U.T. CHANDIGARH & ORS. versus GURCHARAN SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 853 · Decided: 01-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 12 S.C.R. 853 
U.T. CHANDIGARH & ORS. 
v. 
GURCHARAN SINGH & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9873 of 2013) 
NOVEMBER 01, 2013 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Pay - Pay-fixation of re-employed pensioners - Pay of C 
re-employed ex-serviceman re-fixed finding that his initial pay 
fixation was wrong - Administrative Tribunal held that 
employer was right in rectifying the mistake - High Court held 
that the re-fixation was wrong - Held: As per the provisions of 
order regulating fixation of pay of re-employed pensioners o 
and as per the option exercised by the employee, his previous 
service would not be taken into account for the purposes of 
his pay fixation - Hence, re-fixation of his pay was justified -
Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed 
Pensioners) Orders, 1986 - Order 4. 
E 
The respondent was appointed as a clerk by the 
appellant, in the quota reserved for ex-servicemen. His 
pay was fixed by order dated 2.9.1992. On his retirement, 
by audit query it was brought to the notice of the 
appellant that the pay of the respondent had been 
F 
wrongly fixed. By order dated 13.10.1998, the mistake 
committed in pay fixation was rectified. The application 
challenging the re-fixation of salary was dismissed by 
Central Administrative Tribunal. Writ petition against the 
order of Tribunal was allowed. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Tribunal was right in coming to the 
853 
H 
854 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A conclusion that the pay fixation under the order dated 
13th October, 1998 was correct because a mistake was 
committed in the earlier pay fixation under the order dated 
2nd September, 1992. The respondent had been given an 
option. It is clearly revealed from the option form that the 
B respondent had agreed to get his pay fixed as per the 
minimum of pay in the pay-scale of the Clerk, the post to 
which he had been re-employed. As per the provisions 
of the Orders and as per the option exercised by the 
respondent, service rendered by the respondent to the 
c Indian Army cannot be taken into account for the 
purposes of his pay fixation as the respondent would be 
getting his pension and there would not be any 
deduction from his pension or his salary on account of 
the pension received by him from the Indian Army. If 
0 
nothing has been deducted from the pension of the 
respondent upon being re-employed and as the 
respondent would continue to get his pension and other 
benefits from the Army for his past services, the High 
Court was not right while permitting the respondent to get 
E his higher pay fixed by taking into account the services 
rendered by the respondent to the Indian Army. [Paras 
8, 10 and 11] [859-F-H; 860-A-C, E] 
2. If any amount had been paid due to mistake, the 
mistake must be rectified and the amount so paid in 
F 
pursuance of the mistake must be recovered. Upon 
settlement of the account, whatever amount has to be 
paid to the respondent employee or to the appellant 
employer shall be paid and the account shall be adjusted 
G 
accordingly. [Para 12] [860-F-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
9873 of 2013. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 20.03.2008 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition 
H No. 7006-CAT of 2003. 
U.T. CHANDIGARH & ORS. v. GURCHARAf\! SINGH 855 
Kavita Wadia, Shashank Tripathi for the Appellants. · 
A 
H.S. Saini, Balbir Singh Gupta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ANILR. DAVE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
B 
2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered in Civil Writ 
Petition No.7006-CAT of 2003 dated 20th March, 2008 by the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, this appeal 
has been filed by the employer - Union Territory of Chandigarh 
C 
and others. 
3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nut-shell 
are as under: 
The respondent was appointed as a Clerk by the appellant 
D 
Chandigarh Transport Undertaking on the quota reserved for 
ex-servicemen. The respondent had rendered his services to 
·the Indian Army as a Combatant Clerk upto 31st January, 1990, 
till the date when he was discharged from the Indian Army. 
Upon his appointment as a Clerk under an office order 
E 
dated 2nd September, 1992, his pay had been fixed and he 
was paid his salary accordingly. Only when he retired in 1997, 
it was brought to the notice of the employer, on getting an audit 
q

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.