Government Expected To Uphold Pensioners’ Rights, Not Force Them To Seek Intervention Of Court: Supreme Sets Aside Order Withholding Employee’s Gratuity
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, which reversed the decision of the CAT, which had held that the employee was eligible for a higher Grade Pay under the MACPS.
Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manmohan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court set aside an Order which withheld an employee’s gratuity while remarking that the Government/employer is expected to uphold pensioners’ rights, not force them to seek intervention of the Court.
The Court set aside the decision of the Karnataka High Court, which reversed the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had held that the employee (Appellant) was eligible for a higher Grade Pay under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS). The Court, noting the harsh comments by the High Court in the impugned Order, stated that “such an observation defies logic and reason.”
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held, “The High Court in the impugned order harshly commented that though the appellant was not entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.7600, he took the benefit of the same for over 5 years from 2012. Such an observation defies logic and reason. The appellant having been granted Grade Pay of Rs.6600 at the time of second upgradation under ACPS, he would naturally consider grant of Rs.7600 as Grade Pay under the MACPS at the time of third upgradation to be in order. More importantly, it was the respondents who had proceeded to grant him Grade Pay of Rs.7600 on 5th March, 2012. Any sharp practice has not been and could not be attributed to the appellant. It would have been desirable if the High Court were a bit more courteous in its expression.”
Advocate Bina Madhavan represented the Appellant, while ASG Brijender Chahar appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The dispute was regarding the correct Grade Pay to be awarded to the Appellant, who was appointed as a Quality Assurance Officer and throughout his 37-year tenure, had not received any promotions.
The Appellant received the financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Schemes (ACPS), and was later replaced by the MACPS.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held, "It needs no emphasis that a pensioner should not be made to suffer unnecessarily for the remissness of his employer. We expect the Government/employer to uphold pensioners’ rights and bring smiles on their faces, not force them to seek intervention of the Court. Pensioners being forced to approach the Court against the Government/employer is the last resort that we expect."
The Bench stated that “the High Court was of the view that any payment made by the employer in excess of entitlement of the employee could be recovered by the employer subject to the condition that the employee is heard before an order for recovery is made. Since public money is involved, it was open to the respondents to rectify the mistake committed and direct recovery of excess payment made to the appellant. While it is true that the appellant was issued a notice to show cause, mere issuance of such notice was not enough.”
“The High Court was required to consider whether the appellant’s claim with reference to O.M. dated 9th September, 2010 was justified. In this behalf, we have noticed a glaring omission in the impugned order of the High Court. It seems inexplicable that the High Court failed to consider the scope, effect and import of O.M. dated 9 th September, 2010, which was quoted in extenso by the Tribunal in its order dated 13th February, 2019. We are constrained to observe that the omission of the High Court to refer to O.M. dated 9 th September, 2010, even remotely, does suggest non-application of mind,” the Court further stated.
The Bench held, “Having noticed such failure/neglect of the respondents, we are of the considered opinion that the point in issue as to whether the appellant should have been entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.7600 or Rs.6600 need not detain us any longer. The respondents did not approach the High Court by making a full disclosure of all the relevant data/information and have been successful in obtaining a favourable order in a manner which cannot but be frowned upon.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “We set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The withheld amount of Rs.1.90 lakh shall be credited in the bank account of the appellant within a month from date together with interest @ 6% per annum.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: K. V. Gopalakrishnan v. Union of India & Ors.
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Bina Madhavan, Nimesh Thomas and Yashovardhan Choudhri
Respondents: ASG Brijender Chahar; AOR N. Visakamurthy; Advocates Rajeshwari Shankar, Raman Yadav, Vaishali Verma, Vimla Sinha and Rekha Pandey
