Diploma Holder Paid Excess Salary Of Degree Holder Due To Administrative Error, Calcutta HC Denies Recovery After 18 Years
The Calcutta Excessive Courtroom bench comprising Justice Smita Das De held that restoration of extra wage paid resulting from administrative error, with none fraud or misrepresentation by the worker is impermissible, particularly after a protracted lapse of time.
Background Info
An commercial was revealed by the West Bengal Central College Service Fee on 01.11.1999. It was issued for appointment to the put up of Assistant Instructor in Work Training in acknowledged non-government aided colleges throughout West Bengal. The pay scale talked about for cross graduate candidates was Rs. 4650–10175/-. The petitioner had a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. He utilized for the put up and appeared within the Second Regional Degree Choice Check, 1999. He was chosen and subsequently, was beneficial for appointment in Alam Bazar Arya Vidyalaya Junior Excessive College. An appointment letter was issued in his favour on 05.03.2000. He joined the put up on 08.03.2001. The District Inspector of Colleges (S.C.), Barrackpore accredited his appointment on 13.07.2001, treating him as a cross graduate.
Later the college was upgraded to Excessive College from the 2001–2002 educational session. The petitioner went on to finish his B.A. Honours in Sociology in 2008, M.A. in Training in 2012, and B.Ed. by way of distance mode. He took prior approval for doing these programs. He obtained revised pay advantages below ROPA schemes through the years. He was granted an increment after finishing 10 years of service in 2011. Then he utilized for Profession Development advantages in 2019, upon finishing 18 years of service. The proposal was forwarded to the authorities. Throughout vetting, the Joint Director (Accounts) noticed that the petitioner had wrongly been granted a better pay scale of Rs. 4650–10175/- as a substitute of Rs. 4500–9700/- which was relevant for diploma holders. Due to this fact, the authority issued Memo dated 19.09.2019 demanding restoration of Rs. 21,770/- as extra fee made resulting from pay fixation error.
Aggrieved by the identical, the petitioner filed the writ petition.
It was submitted by the petitioner that the respondents issued the restoration order with out issuing any prior discover or affording the petitioner a chance of listening to. It was additional submitted that the petitioner had been granted the pay scale of Rs. 4650–10175/- from the very starting of his service primarily based on the commercial dated 01.11.1999, and the identical was duly accredited by the competent authority. Due to this fact the motion of the respondent was arbitrary which downgraded the petitioner’s pay scale to Rs. 4500–9700/- after 18 years of steady service.
Then again, it was submitted by the respondent State that the petitioner was not entitled to the upper pay scale of Rs. 4650–10175/- as he solely held a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and never a graduate diploma on the time of appointment. It was said that as per ROPA 1981, ROPA 1990, and ROPA 1998, the suitable pay scale for diploma holders within the Work Training topic is Rs. 4500–9700/-. It was additional contended by the State that the petitioner’s preliminary pay was mistakenly mounted below a better scale by the then District Inspector of Colleges.
Findings of the Courtroom
It was noticed by the Courtroom that the petitioner had been receiving the pay scale of Rs. 4650–10175/- ever since his preliminary appointment in 2001. The dimensions was accredited by the competent authority and revised sometimes below varied ROPA schemes. It was discovered by the Courtroom that the petitioner had not dedicated any fraud or misrepresentation and had merely accepted the wage mounted by the authorities. It was held by the Courtroom that the error in fixation of pay was solely administrative in nature. The surplus quantity was paid resulting from a bona fide mistake on the a part of the District Inspector of Colleges. The petitioner had no function within the error. Thus, it was held that searching for restoration of the surplus wage after 18 years of service was arbitrary and unsustainable. The Courtroom emphasised that such restoration when made lengthy after the profit was granted and utilized in good religion, causes undue hardship.
The case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih was relied upon whereby it was held that if an worker receives extra fee because of the employer’s mistake and with none fraud, such restoration shouldn’t be made. Additionally, when the worker belongs to Group C or D service is nearing retirement, or the surplus fee continued for greater than 5 years, then restoration is impermissible. Additional the judgment in Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala & Ors., was additionally relied upon by the courtroom which held that such recoveries could also be put aside in fairness to forestall undue hardship, even when there is no such thing as a authorized entitlement to retain the quantity.
It was held by the Courtroom that the petitioner had served faithfully for nearly twenty years, counting on the wage construction mounted by the authorities. Recovering the quantity after such a protracted interval would trigger disproportionate hardship and fail the check of reasonableness and fairness. Accordingly, the restoration order dated 19.09.2019 was put aside.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed.
Case Title : Tarun Kanti Naskar vs. State of West Bengal & Others
Case No. : WPA 20672 of 2022
Counsel for the Petitioner : Taraprasad Halder
Counsel for the Respondents : Supriyo Chattopadhyay, Iti Dutta, Sutanu Kr. Patra, Supriya Dubey
