New Delhi: Holding that government exchequer should not suffer losses due to illegal decisions of officers, the Supreme Court has said that such erring officers along with those who get undue benefit shall have to make good that amount, and directed that money be recovered in a case related to an officer who was illegally granted a higher pay scale which he has been enjoying for the past 24 years.
Showing no leniency to erring officials whose illegal decision led to the officer getting paid at a higher scale for more than two decades, a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal directed that the excess amount paid must be reimbursed to the exchequer as it was not a bonafide mistake but favouritism shown to him by changing rules.
In this case the officer joined the Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology as a Research Assistant (Medicine) in 1999 along with others in the pay scale of Rs 6,500-10,500, but an order was passed in 2006 granting him higher pay scale of Rs 8,000-13,500 with effect from the date of his appointment. Aggrieved by the order, his colleagues who were not extended the same benefit approached tribunal and courts and finally they had to approach the apex court through lawyer Somesh Jha and Amartya Sharan after their plea was denied by lower forums including the high court.
The bench said that the favouritism shown to the officer was very evident and noted that he was allowed multiple times to go on deputation to other organisations on higher pay scale before 2006 and joined the parent department only after his pay scale was increased.
“In our opinion, the authorities were hand in gloves with the respondent No. 4 (the officer) to somehow grant him a higher pay scale and repeatedly action was taken in that direction. If governed by the same set of rules, a single post of the same cadre could not have been isolated and granted a higher pay scale by merely considering the qualifications prescribed for the post,” the bench said.
“It was a well-planned and deliberate infraction. We therefore direct recovery of the excess amount paid to the respondent No. 4, though in instalments, and/or from the officer(s), who were directly involved in the decision-making process of granting undue benefit to him. Both should be made equally liable to reimburse the exchequer for the amount illegally disbursed to him. The exchequer should not be made to suffer on that account and either of two shall have to make good that loss of undue benefit granted to him,” the bench said.
Showing no leniency to erring officials whose illegal decision led to the officer getting paid at a higher scale for more than two decades, a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal directed that the excess amount paid must be reimbursed to the exchequer as it was not a bonafide mistake but favouritism shown to him by changing rules.
In this case the officer joined the Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology as a Research Assistant (Medicine) in 1999 along with others in the pay scale of Rs 6,500-10,500, but an order was passed in 2006 granting him higher pay scale of Rs 8,000-13,500 with effect from the date of his appointment. Aggrieved by the order, his colleagues who were not extended the same benefit approached tribunal and courts and finally they had to approach the apex court through lawyer Somesh Jha and Amartya Sharan after their plea was denied by lower forums including the high court.
The bench said that the favouritism shown to the officer was very evident and noted that he was allowed multiple times to go on deputation to other organisations on higher pay scale before 2006 and joined the parent department only after his pay scale was increased.
“In our opinion, the authorities were hand in gloves with the respondent No. 4 (the officer) to somehow grant him a higher pay scale and repeatedly action was taken in that direction. If governed by the same set of rules, a single post of the same cadre could not have been isolated and granted a higher pay scale by merely considering the qualifications prescribed for the post,” the bench said.
“It was a well-planned and deliberate infraction. We therefore direct recovery of the excess amount paid to the respondent No. 4, though in instalments, and/or from the officer(s), who were directly involved in the decision-making process of granting undue benefit to him. Both should be made equally liable to reimburse the exchequer for the amount illegally disbursed to him. The exchequer should not be made to suffer on that account and either of two shall have to make good that loss of undue benefit granted to him,” the bench said.
