2023 (8) TMI 345 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Grant of Selection Grade cancelled - recovery order on the ground that the earlier service rendered in Khadi Board is not eligible service for awarding Selection Grade and Special Grade in the Government department - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Khadi Assistant Grade-III in Khadi Board and thereafter, the petitioner found as excess staff in Khadi Board, thereby totally she was absorbed in other Government department. While she was working in the respondent department, she was awarded with Selection Grade and Special Grade on completion of 10 years and 20 years service, respectively. That the incentive increment sought to be recovered subsequently, on the ground that the service rendered in the Khadi Board, is not eligible to get benefits in the respondent department, thereby, the present recovery order was passed. Though there is no violation of principles of natural justice, the present recovery order is passed after hearing the petitioner. Similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafik Masih 2014 (12) TMI 1415 - SUPREME COURT , wherein, the Apex Court held that in the absence of any misrepresentation, if any benefits granted to the clause 3 and 4 employees cannot be sought to be recovered subsequently, at a later point of time. The Recovery proceedings, initiated by the respondents is not sustainable, and accordingly, the present impugned order is quashed - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to recovery order based on service rendered in different departments; Validity of recovery proceedings; Application of principles of natural justice in recovery order.

Analysis:
The petitioner, initially appointed as Khadi Assistant Grade III in the Tamil Nadu Khadi Board, was absorbed in another government department due to excess staff in the Khadi Board. The petitioner was granted Selection Grade and Special Grade based on her service in the Khadi Board. However, a recovery order was later issued, stating that the earlier service in the Khadi Board was not eligible for these grades in the new department. The petitioner challenged this recovery order through a writ petition, which was allowed by the court with directions for appropriate orders. The present impugned order is a result of this direction. The main contention is the validity of the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent department.

The petitioner argued that the awarding of Selection Grade and Special Grade without misrepresentation should not be subject to recovery, citing a Supreme Court judgment in a similar context. The respondent, however, justified the recovery order based on government letters stating that employees absorbed from the Khadi Board should be treated as new entrants in the new department, and the awarding of grades was against established guidelines. The respondent contended that the petitioner should have challenged the government letter instead of the recovery order.

The court examined the facts, noting that the petitioner was absorbed into the new department after being found as excess staff in the Khadi Board. While the recovery order was passed after hearing the petitioner and without violating natural justice principles, the court referred to a Supreme Court decision stating that recoveries from Class III and IV employees without misrepresentation are impermissible. The court relied on this precedent to quash the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent, leading to the quashing of the impugned order.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and closed the case without costs. The judgment highlights the importance of established legal principles in determining the validity of recovery proceedings and emphasizes the protection of employees from arbitrary or inequitable recoveries.