Gobinda Das vs Union of India and Others

Hon''ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas

The petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated December 23, 2004 is questioning a decision of Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute dated January 21, 2002 (WP p.24). Relevant parts of the decision are quoted below:

In continuation of this Office memorandum of even number, dtd. 9.1.2002, this is stated that an over payment to the tune of Rs. 64,339/- (Rupees Sixty four thousand three hundred thirty nine only), as ascertained in consultation with the F & AO, has been made to Shri Gobinda Das, Ex-T.A.B-1 due to granting him three advance increments w.e.f, 1.4.1988 erroneously.

In compliance with CSIR decision an amount of Rs. 64,339/- (Rupees Sixty four thousand three hundred thirty nine only), may be recovered from the leave encashment bill of Shri Gobinda Das.

The petitioner was appointed in the institute as a Plumber in 1965. He was retired from service as TA B-1. Case stated in para.4 of the WP is as follows:-

During the tenureof service of your petitioner your petitioner had been granted three advanced increments by the assessment committee on his attaining promotion from Technician Grade (II) 2 in the scale of Rs. 1,350-2200 to Technician grade (II) 3 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 W.E.F. 1.4.88 with three advanced increment under the New Recruitment and Assessment Scheme, 1981. At para 0.4.5. three was and is a clear provision of grant of advance increments.

It is evident that after his retirement from service the institute decided to recover Rs. 64,339 alleging overpayment due to erroneous grant of advance increments with effect from April 1, 1988.

Affidavit-in-Opposition has been filed, and case stated in para.5 of the AO is as follows:-

With reference to the statements made in paragraph 4 of the said application, save and except what are matters of record, I deny and dispute all other allegations made therein. I state that advance increments were granted erroneously to the petitioner treating that the promotion was considered under New Recruitment and Assessment Scheme, in short "NRAS", but, in fact, it was Merit and Normal Assessment Scheme, in short "MANAS" under which petitioner was granted promotion where there is no provision of granting advance increment for the promotees.

It is, therefore, evident that the increments in question were granted consequent upon the petitioner''s promotion to higher grades.

It is not the case of the respondents that the advance increments were granted because of any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner or fraud exercised by him. After his retirement the institute could not reopen the issue and tell him that he had been erroneously given the advance increments. The principle stated in Syed Abdul Qadir and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, applies to the case. For these reasons, I allow the WP, set aside the impugned decision and direct the respondents to pay the amount, recalculate the retirement benefits, and pay balance retirement benefits. On all payable amounts 7% p.a. interest shall be paid. Compliance within four weeks from the date this order is served. No costs. Certified xerox.