Pranabendu Bikash Chakraborti vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

Heard Mr. CS Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. TD Majumder, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondents contained in the letter dated 05.12.2012 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) and in the letter dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) issued by the Member Secretary, State Resource Centre, Tripura. By those letters, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.22,250/- which he had received as honorarium.

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has submitted that by the letter dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), the petitioner was communicated that on the basis of the order of the authority, a comprehensive proposal for according ex post facto approval of the Finance Department, Government of Tripura for making the payment for attending OPD and Camp of the DD Board on different dates on the basis of an observation made by the Internal Audit team recently was forwarded. The petitioner was asked to refund a sum of Rs.16,500/- against his bill dated 28.09.2011 and Rs. 5,750/- against his bill dated 01.02.2012 to that context. The said action, in view of the letter dated 31.10.2012 had been taken, as the Finance Department regretted the proposal. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has further submitted that in addition to the work done by the petitioner, he has discharged his duties in OPD and the other 14 camps. He had attended 14 camps from 28.04.2010 to 24.08.2011 and 6 camps from 22.09.2011 to 25.01.2012 against which the said amount has been paid as honorarium.

The petitioner has expressed his grievance contending that the mega camps are organized by the SRC/ DDRC and such honorarium was paid as per the decision of the Member, Secretary, Health, available at note No. 29 (page 13 of the reply filed by the respondents no. 1,2 and 3). But that proposition when went for the ex post facto sanction to the Finance Department, the Finance Department had regretted such payment. The action for recovery has been resorted as the Finance Department did not give its seal of approval over such payment as the honorarium. The petitioner has been working as the Audiometry Technician, Group 'C' employee at the IGM hospital, Agartala.

The respondents have clearly stated that there is no Rule or any Policy of the government to pay the government servants remuneration for attending the camps inasmuch as those are part of their duties and the competent authority has right to realize his service at any place where it is so required in the public interest.

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has submitted that from the communication dated 30.11.2010 issued by the State Resource Centre (SRC) (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) it will be apparent that the petitioner was asked to raise the bills for purpose of remuneration and accordingly the petitioner raised the bills and he was paid an amount of Rs. 25,500/- in the course of time. The petitioner has raised the bills according to the suggested rate and there was no inflation in the bills. But by the letter dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) the petitioner was asked to refund the said amount of Rs.22,500/-. Similar letters were issued to the petitioner on 12.03.2013 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition), 05.12.2012 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) and 22.04.2013 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition), but the petitioner has refused to refund and approached this court against the said action of the respondents.

Mr. Majumder, learned Government Advocate has submitted that in view of the decision of the Principal Secretary, Health, as stated and in contemplation that the Finance Department would accord ex post facto sanction of the said amount, but the Finance Department had declined to approve such proposition for incentivizing the employees by way of giving honorarium. Thus, the petitioner was asked to deposit the said amount on the face of an audit objection. Be that as it may, there cannot be any different opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to have any additional remuneration for attending the camps in absence of any Rule or Policy of the government. However, it appears that in view of the decision reflected in the Order No. 29 [at page 13 of the reply filed by the respondents], the entire action was taken. In the said note, the Principal Secretary, Health approved the proposal for making payment of remuneration to the employees like the petitioner. Later on, however, it is available on record that the Finance Department did not approve such payment.

There is no bar that the State government or any of its department cannot provide remuneration to its employees for encouraging them in doing extra work in addition to their usual duty, but it is also cannot be denied that there is no such Policy or Rule under which such order can be passed. Thus, the petitioner does not have any right to claim any remuneration or it cannot be stated that the said remuneration was paid by the SRC in discharge of any obligation. According to Mr. Majumder, learned Government Advocate, that was a clear procedural mistake committed by the SRC as they had paid the said honorarium without taking prior permission from the Finance Department.

Be that as it may, the solitary question that falls for consideration of this court is that whether now this court should permit the respondents to recover the said amount from the petitioner. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, where the Apex Court has laid down a guideline where the court would permit to recover or deduct any amount that has already been paid by way of omission or mistake and where the court shall not allow the authorities to deduct the said amount from category of employees such as Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees. Since, the petitioner does belong to Group 'C' category, this court of the considered view that by applying the principle as laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab & others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) the respondents shall not be allowed to recover the said sum from the petitioner after such a long lapse of time, but it is again made clear that in future without devising the proper procedure the respondents shall not indulge in such method of incentivizing the employees. It creates grievance in the mind of those personnel who are working hard round the clock in various departments and are not getting any additional remuneration in any form.

In view of what has been observed, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be supplied to Mr. TD Majumder, learned Government Advocate for doing the needful.