LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SHRI BHANWAR LAL MUNDAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 559 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. SHRI BHANWAR LAL MUNDAN (Civil Appeal No. 7292 of 2013) AUGUST 27, 2013 [ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Service Law: A B Pay fixation - Repatriation of employee from deputation C post in parent department on promotional post - Pay on the deputation post higher than the pay on promotional post - Pay fixation on promotional post on the basis of the higher pay on the deputation post - At the time of superannuation, accounts department realizing that pay fixation was erroneous, D refixed the pay of the employee and directed to refund the excess sum - Courts below quashed the order - Held: Fixation of pay on the promotional post on the basis of higher pay scale on the deputation post, was erroneous - Hence, authorities were within domain to rectify it - However, there E shall be no recovery of the excess amount paid to the employee. The respondent employee in JU Division of the appellant-employer, was sent on deputation to f Construction Organisation. He was called to participate in selection process for promotional post in his parent department. On being successful, he joined the promotional post. Since his pay on the deputation post was higher than the pay on the promotional post, his pay G on the promotional post was fixed on the basis of the pay he was drawing on the deputation post. At the time of determination of his pension, on superannuation, it was 559 H 560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A realized that he had been given excess pay due to erroneous fixation of pay. Therefore, the respondent was sent a communication re-fixing his pay and directing recovery of excess sum. B The respondent challenged the order of re-fixation, and the Administrative Tribunal quashed the same. High Court confirmed the order of Tribunal. Hence the present appeal. C Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HEU): 1. The repatriation has to be to the original post and benefit of promotion in the department to which an employee is deputed is of no consequence subject to 0 his entitlement of status otherwise available in the parent department. When a deputationist is repatriated he cannot claim promotions in the parent department on the basis of officiation in a higher post in the borrower · organization. (Paras 19 and 20] [570-C-D] E 2. In the present case, the respondent was getting higher scale of pay in the post while he was holding a particular post as a deputationist. After his repatriation to the parent cadre on selection to a higher post, he was given higher scale of pay as it was fixed keeping in view _ F the pay scale drawn by him while he was working in the ex-cadre post. Such fixation of pay was erroneous and, therefore, the authorities were within their domain to rectify the same. Thus the tribunal and the High Court have fallen into error by opining that the respondent G would be entitled to get the pension on the basis of the pay drawn by him before his retirement. (Para 22] (571- A-C] UNION OF INDIA v. BHANWAR LAL MUNDAN 561 3. Orders passed by the tribunal as well as by the A High Court are set aside directing fixation of pension on the basis of pay drawn by the respondent. However, there shall be no recovery of the excess amount paid to the respondent. [Para 23] [571-D] D.M. Bharati vs. L.M. Sud and Ors. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 162: 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 580; Puranjit Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 1994 Supp (3) SCC 471; State of Punjab and Ors. vs. lnder Singh and Ors. (1997) 8 SCC 372: B 1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 425 - relied on. c lnder Pal Yadav and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2005) 11 SCC 301; Badri Prasad and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2005) 11 SCC 304; Sayed Abdul Qadir and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 475: 2008 (17) SCR D 917; Union of India and Anr. vs. P.N. Natarajan and Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 405; State of Orissa vs. Or.Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269: 1967 SCR 625; Sayeedur Rehman vs. State of Bihar (1973) 3 sec 333: 1973 (2) SCR 1043 - distinguished. E Case Law Reference: (2005) 11 sec 301 distinguished Para 10 (2005) 11 sec 304 distinguished Para 14 F 2008 (17) SCR 917 distinguished Para 14 (201 O) 12 sec 405 distinguished Para 16 1967 SCR 625 distinguished Para 16 G 1973 (2) SCR 1043 distinguished Para 16 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 580 relied on Para 19 H A 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1994 Supp (3) sec 471 relied on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.