AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
M.S.LATIF, M (J) oral
01/ Through the medium of this petition, which was initially filed before the Hon’ble High Court of J&K, Srinagar (SWP 1069/2018, now TA 698/2021) the petitioners have, inter alia, sought the following reliefs :
“The Hon’ble court may be pleased to quash the impugned communications and command the respondents to forebear from giving effect to the orders of reduction of pay contained in the impugned order or effect any recoveries from the pay or retiral benefits of the petitioners. Further direction is sought to command the respondents to release the pay of petitioners in the revised pay structure prescribed by 6 Pay Commission along with arrears from March, 2017 till date.”
02/ What emerges from the pleadings in this petition is that the petitioners are employees of Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation and are presently working under the immediate administrative control of respondents 6&7 and are posted at Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
petitioners 1 to 4 are holding the post of Stenographers and the petitioner No.5 is in position of Manager-cum-Accountant, Departmental Canteen.
03/ Learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to enforcement of 6th pay commission recommendations, the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 and Rs. 5000-8000 stood merged and upgraded to higher pay scale of 6500-10500 and the recommendations were implemented pursuant to representations made by the employees of Prasar Bharti as well and on proper consideration and contemplation, the two pay scales were upgraded in the Prasar Bharti Corporation in terms of order dated 03-10-2012. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners, holding the position of Stenographers and Manager-cum-Accountant in the unrevised scale of Rs. 5000-8000 were entitled to revision of pay in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 plus GP 4200 in terms of the mandate of Central Pay Commission Report read with order contained in annexure – P1 to the petition.
04/ Learned counsel submitted that the respondents implemented the aforesaid decision and fixed the pay of the petitioner under the revised pay scale in the year 2013-14, with effect from 01-01-2006 and released the arrears as well in favour of
the petitioners.
05/ When the matter came up for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court on 17-05-2018, an order was passed, which, inter alia, read ‘……..in the meantime, subject to objections from the other side and till next date of hearing before the bench, status quo, as it existed today, is directed to be maintained.’ This direction was, thereafter, extended from time to time and during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No.5, moved an application seeking withdrawal of the petition to his extent and the same was allowed vide order dated 20-07-2020. Thereafter the matter was transferred to the Jammu Bench of CAT.
06/ Reply stands filed in the matter.
07/ Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even otherwise, in terms of law, laid down by the apex court in the celebrated judgement titled as State of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih (white washer case) and Thomas Daniel versus State of Kerala, (AIR 2022 SC 2153) and the latest judgement of the apex court delivered in case titled as Employees District Judge Cuttack versus State of Orissa, no recoveries can be made. Even otherwise, from the reply filed by the respondents, the excess amount drawn by the petitioners, is not drawn by them by way of any misrepresentation, fraud and same is not as a result of any connivance, as such, it cannot be recovered.
08/ Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
identical matters, urging similar facts and circumstances as are urged in the case on hand, have been dealt with by the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, CAT, Chandigarh bench as also by CAT, Ernakulam bench in O.A 261.2016, O.A 060/00524/2018 & O.A 180/00891/2017 respectively.
09/ Learned counsel for the respondents, while rebutting the argument of Mr. Haqani, submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the grade, which has otherwise been released in their favour. He was, however, pointedly asked as to whether there was a fraud or connivance or misrepresentation attributable to the petitioners, to which he submitted that the reply filed by the respondents is self explanatory as regards fraud or otherwise.
10/ Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record and the judgements cited before the court. Accordingly, the matter is disposed of by providing that the respondents will treat this T.A as representation and will pass appropriate orders in the light of law laid down herein above within period of eight weeks in accordance with law in case the petitioners herein are similarly circumstanced with the petitioners of the O.As cited above.
11/ In the backdrop of what has been discussed above, this T.A.
698/2021 is disposed of along with connected M.As, if any.