Holding that a retired employee cannot be made to suffer because of a clerical “oversight” committed by the employer nearly two decades earlier, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the reduction in the basic pay of a retired Upper Division Clerk, set aside the recovery of Rs 1,53,361 ordered from him and directed the authorities to recalculate his pensionary benefits on the basis of the pay actually drawn by him at the time of retirement.
Allowing the writ petition filed against Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and other respondents by the employee way back in 2005, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that the burden of an administrative lapse could not be shifted to an employee who had played no role in the error. The court also directed payment of interest at six per cent per annum on delayed pensionary benefits.
“This Court is constrained to observe that the conduct exhibited by the respondents is unbecoming of a public employer. The State and its instrumentalities, being model employers, are held up to higher standards and therefore, bear an additional responsibility to ensure that their actions are not perceived as arbitrary or lackadaisical,” Justice Brar ruled.
The petitioner had sought quashing of the Last Pay Certificate dated July 15, 2005, whereby his basic pay was reduced from Rs 8,475 to Rs 7,600, along with a direction to release pensionary benefits on the basis of his original last drawn pay.
The Bench was told that the petitioner was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk on October 5, 1972, and retired on October 31, 2004 on attaining the age of superannuation while drawing a basic pay of Rs 8,475. No objection regarding his pay was ever raised by the respondent-Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) during his service.
The petitioner contended that his pay was fixed with effect from January 1, 1986. But the respondents—nearly 18 years later—reduced it from Rs 1,600 to Rs 1,400 with retrospective effect through an order dated July 1, 2005. He submitted that show-cause notice was not issued before reducing his basic pay from Rs 8,475 to Rs 7,600 through the impugned Last Pay Certificate, which also ordered recovery of Rs 1,53,361. He argued that the action violated the principles of natural justice as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Opposing the petition, UHBVNL contended that the petitioner crossed the efficiency bar with effect from October 1, 1989. But the benefit was inadvertently granted from October 1, 1984. The error came to light only while finalising his pension after retirement. The Nigam further asserted that a show-cause notice dated August 25, 2005, had in fact been issued to the petitioner, but he did not submit any reply.
After considering the rival submissions, Justice Brar held that the respondents could not make the petitioner suffer for their own lapse. “The clerical oversight on part of the respondent-UHBVNL from about two decades ago cannot be allowed to affect the rights of the petitioner, especially when no fault has been attributed to him with regard to any miscalculations.”
Justice Brar added objection was not raised by the respondent-UHBVNL during the course of the petitioner’s service regarding the pay drawn by him. It was a well settled principle that employees should not be deprived of their lawful benefits or suffer adverse consequences due to such employer omissions. The principle of equity and fairness demanded that the burden of administrative or technical lapses should not be shifted unfairly to the employees, who had no role in the omissions.
“Employees cannot be made to bear the financial or career consequences of the employer’s negligence, delay, or wrongful implementation, especially when they had no contributory role in the lapse,” Justice Brar held.
Allowing the petition, Justice Brar quashed the Last Pay Certificate “indicating a lesser basic pay and ordering recovery”. The Bench directed the respondents to “recalculate the applicable pensionary benefits to the case of the petitioner based on the pay actually last drawn by the petitioner at the time of his retirement without accounting for the clerical omission with respect to the clearance of the Efficiency Bar.” The exercise has been directed to be completed within six weeks from receiving the order
The court further held that the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits, to be calculated after expiry of one month from the date of his retirement till the date of actual realisation.
