Recovery Of Excess Payment From Lower-Rung Employees Violates Article 14: Patna HC Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Penalty On Child Development Project Officer
The Patna High Court has reiterated that recovering excess payments from employees in the lower service tiers, such as Class-III and Class-IV staff, is iniquitous and would place an undue burden on them, exceeding any reciprocal benefit to the employer.
Justice Purnendu Singh, presiding over the matter, emphasised, “employees in lower rung of service would spend their entire earnings in the upkeep and welfare of their family, and if such excess payment is allowed to be recovered from them, it would cause them for more hardship, than the reciprocal gains to the employer.”
“We are, therefore, satisfied in concluding that such recovery from employees belonging to the lower rungs (i.e. Class-III and Class-IV - sometimes denoted as Group 'C' and Group 'D') of service, should not be subjected to the ordeal of any recovery, even though they were beneficiaries of receiving higher emoluments, than were due to them. Such recovery would be iniquitous and arbitrary and therefore would also breach the mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” Justice Singh added.
The ruling was issued in response to a petition by Sita Kumari, a Class-IV employee who challenged a recovery order issued by the Medical Officer-in-Charge of a Primary Health Centre. The order sought to recover incremented pay from 1984 to 2009, based on Kumari's failure to pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination.
The Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the petitioner who was an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM.), was vividly exempted till date from passing Hindi Noting-Drafting Examination as she was a Matriculate with Hindi as one of the subjects and also she was not concerned with the work of noting and drafting in course of discharge of her duties. However, to ensure eligibility for future promotions, she had already completed the examination.
In response, the Respondent contended that, except for class-IV employees, all government employees involved in official duties must handle some level of correspondence and report preparation, necessitating that they pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination within a year of joining. Failure to do so would result in withholding of their next annual increment.
The Court, drawing from Apex Court precedent and the pleadings in the writ petition, held that the respondents had played with the 'vital right of the petitioner' by recovering excess payments from her incremented salary despite her failure to clear the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, without explaining whether this action was lawful.
At the same time, the Court also observed that the deliberate action of the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) for recovery was not in accordance with law and the same process of recovery was initiated without providing her proper opportunity of hearing before passing such an order of recovery.
Finding the circumstances unwarranted, the Court imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid personally by the CDPO, Daniyawa (Fatuha), for harassing the petitioner and burdening the Court with cases stemming from the failure to adhere to Apex Court rulings.
The Court also criticised the Accountant General (Audit) for a misleading statement, where it was stated that the recovery of pay and allowances were not suggested by the audit.
The Court said, “In the similar way, the respondent no.5, the Medical Officer-cum-Incharge Primary Health Centre Bakhtiyarpur has shown his complete disregard to the law laid down by the Apex Court and has informed this Court in paragraph no.11 that “deduction has been made in compliance of the objection raised by the Principal Accountant General (Audit).”
The Court expressed that the willfully misleading statements by the Medical Officer-In-Charge Primary Health Centre, the CDPO, and the Accountant General Audit warranted contempt proceedings. However, due to the protracted delay (the writ petition has been pending since 2011) and the settled legal position on recovery, the Court instead quashed the impugned recovery order, which sought to recover Rs. 3,08,980 plus monthly deductions of Rs. 7,920 until full recovery.
The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: Sita Kumari v The State of Bihar & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 103