Uttarakhand High Court Quashes Recovery Order Against Retired Employee; Directs Re-fixation of Pay Scale and Payment of Arrears in Line with Prior Judgments

Court’s Decision:

The Uttarakhand High Court quashed the impugned recovery order against the petitioner, a retired employee, and directed the respondents to re-fix the pay scale of the petitioner as per the 2nd and 3rd Assured Career Progression (ACP) schemes. The court ruled that the matter was already covered by the judgment dated 04.04.2024, passed by the Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court in Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun and others vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena.

Facts:

The petitioner, a retired employee of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 07.09.2024, which directed a recovery of Rs. 1,67,198/- from his retirement dues. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to arrears and interest on delayed payments and sought the court’s intervention to quash the recovery order.

Issues:

1. Whether the recovery order issued against the retired employee was valid.
2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to arrears and interest for delayed payments.
3. Whether the petitioner’s pay scale needed to be re-fixed in accordance with the 2nd and 3rd ACP schemes.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner argued that the impugned recovery order was contrary to law and his entitlement to the revised pay scale and arrears should be recognized. The petitioner submitted that his claim was covered by the previous judgment of the Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court in Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun and others vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena, and thus sought similar relief.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents did not contest the applicability of the prior judgment to the petitioner’s case. They admitted that the matter was indeed covered by the judgment passed on 04.04.2024 in Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun and others vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena.

Analysis of the Law:

The court analyzed the impact of the previous ruling in Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena. In that case, the Division Bench had decided that recovery orders issued against retired employees without proper notice were unsustainable. Moreover, it directed the re-fixation of the pay scale for eligible employees in accordance with the ACP schemes.

Precedent Analysis:

The court relied heavily on the precedent set by the Division Bench in Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun and others vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena. The precedent clarified that employees like the petitioner were entitled to reliefs such as quashing of recovery orders and proper re-fixation of their pay scales.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court held that, since the respondents admitted the applicability of the previous judgment, there was no need for an extensive discussion on the merits of the case. The matter was squarely covered by the precedent, and the petitioner was entitled to the same reliefs as granted to similarly situated employees.

Conclusion:

The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 07.09.2024 and directed the respondents to re-fix the petitioner’s pay scale in line with the 2nd and 3rd ACP schemes. Additionally, the respondents were instructed to pay the arrears due, along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of retirement until the actual date of payment.

Implications:

This ruling sets a clear precedent for other retired employees facing similar recovery orders. It reaffirms the principle that recovery orders issued without proper basis cannot be sustained, especially when a judgment on similar facts has already been rendered. The directive for re-fixation of pay scales in accordance with ACP schemes ensures that retired employees receive their rightful dues.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Against Interim Maintenance Award, Reaffirms ₹25,000 per Month for Wife and Minor Daughter, Emphasizing Petitioner’s Obligation to Support Family During Interim Period Pending Revision