The Delhi High Court has held that reduction in payment of employee with retrospective effect without prior notice and recovery of excess dues after 19 years is not possible.

The Court was considering a Writ-Petition assailing an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby it rejected the O.A. filed by the Petitioner, wherein he had sought quashing of order passed by the Respondents reducing his pay and consequently directing recoveries to be made from him on account of the purported over-payment made to him w.e.f. 05.12.1988.

The division-bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Manoj Jain observed, ".....we are of the view that once the respondents do not deny that no show cause notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner by the respondents before reducing his pay with retrospective effect and consequently deciding to make recoveries from his pay and gratuity, the petitioner is correct in urging that the impugned order was liable to be set aside being violative of principles of natural justice."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Samarth Luthra while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Amit Tiwari.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner initially joined the Border Security Force (BSF) as a Constable in 1978 and then joined the Delhi Police by way of deputation in 1986. He was, thereafter, absorbed in the Delhi Police where he continued to serve till his superannuation in 2018. It was his case that upon him being absorbed in the Delhi Police, his pay was as per his entitlement correctly fixed at Rs.960/- + Deputation Allowance @10% in the pay scale of Rs.825-15- 900-EB -20-1200. Consequently, he continued to draw all due increments and upgradations in pursuance of the said pay fixation. After a period of 19 years and without any notice to the petitioner, the respondents in 2017 suddenly passed an order directing reduction of his pay to Rs.950+Rs.106 (as P.Pay). In pursuance of this order, the respondents also directed that a sum of Rs.2,97,879/- be recovered from the petitioner. The Central Administrative Tribunal went on to reject his application assailing the impugned order.

Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Respondents could not have, after a period of 19 years, reduced his pay retrospectively and that too without putting him to any notice. It was also urged that, in any event, no recoveries could have been made from him for the payments made to him for the last 19 years. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Bhagwan Shukla vs. Union of India & Others and State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih & Ors.

On the other hand, it was contended from the Respondent's side that after the Petitioner had been absorbed in Delhi Police he was not entitled for any deputation allowance, which was wrongly paid to him, and, therefore, they were justified in reducing his pay, for which no prior notice was required to be given to him as it was an admitted position that the petitioner was no longer on deputation w.e.f. 05.12.1988.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that even though the Tribunal correctly noted the factual position on which we find that the parties are even otherwise not at variance, it failed to appreciate the effect of the two decisions in Bhagwan Shukla (supra) and Rafiq Masih & Ors (surpa) relied upon by the Petitioner

The Court was thus of the view that once the Respondents do not deny that no show cause notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner by the Respondents before reducing his pay with retrospective effect and consequently deciding to make recoveries from his pay and gratuity, the petitioner is correct in urging that the impugned order was liable to be set aside being violative of principles of natural justice.

"We cannot, however, ignore the respondents’ submissions that the petitioner even after being absorbed in the Delhi Police erroneously continued to receive deputation allowance to which he was not entitled to after absorption. We are, therefore, of the view that the respondents ought to be granted an opportunity to correct error, if any, in the fixation of the petitioner’s pay scale after issuing him a show cause notice and considering his response thereto," the Court added.

The impugned order was accordingly set-aside.

Cause Title: Asha Ram Nehra vs. Commissioner Of Police And Anr. (2025:DHC:1067-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Samarth Luthra,

Respondent- Advocate Amit Tiwari (CGSC), Advocate Farmaan Ali, Advocate Ahushi Srivastava, Advocate Asi Jagbir,

Click here to read/ download Order





Delhi HighCourtJustice Rekha PalliJustice Manoj Jain

Sheetal Joon