AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
This appeal is preferred against the order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 62 of 2014 dated 01.04.2014.
The respondent herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court challenging the recovery sought to be made by the appellants from his monthly salary. The dispute in the present case revolves around the question, whether the respondent-writ petitioner was entitled for the benefit of higher pay scale from 01.09.2008 or from 24.03.2011 in terms of Government Order dated 06.04.2011. While the Government Order does appear to stipulate that the notional fitment would be from 01.01.2006, it also provides for actual payment to be made under the Scheme only from 24.03.2011.
The learned Single Judge has, in the order impugned in this appeal, noted that the respondent-writ petitioner was a Class IV employee who was about to reach the age of superannuation on 31.07.2014; the recovery was sought to be made from his salary on the verge of his retirement which would cause him undue harassment; it was not even the case of the State that the higher pay scale had been given notionally; and, even otherwise, recovery of the amount, which comes to Rs.54,732/- from a low salaried Class IV employee, who was on the verge of his retirement, did not appear to be fair on the part of the State.
While we find considerable force in the submission of Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, that notional fitment from 01.01.2006 would not automatically confer on the employee the benefit of actual payment in terms of the Assured Career Progression Scheme from that date, and it is only from the date as stipulated in the Government Order that the employee is entitled for payment of the said amount, we must also bear in mind that the learned Single Judge has, in exercise of his discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, chosen not to permit the appellants to recover the differential amount of Rs. 54,732/- taking into consideration the fact that the respondent herein was a Class IV employee, and was on the verge of his retirement on 31.07.2014.
The respondent-writ petitioner has retired more than 4 years ago. It would be wholly inequitable, at this length of time, for the State to now recover the said amount from him. Suffice it, while dismissing the appeal, to make it clear that the order of the learned Single Judge shall not be construed as conferring a right on any other employee to claim the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme from a date anterior to the date stipulated in the Government Order dated 06.04.2011.
The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.