Dr. Balbir Singh Bhandari vs. State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2024 INSC 29; Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Pankaj Mithal
Background
The case involved Dr. Balbir Singh Bhandari and other Ayurvedic Medical Officers who were granted the benefit of a personal/promotional pay scale by the State of Uttarakhand. This benefit, awarded after 8 and 14 years of continuous service, was later withdrawn by the State government. The government then issued recovery orders to reclaim the amounts paid under the withdrawn benefit, including from officers who had already superannuated. The officers challenged these recovery orders, arguing that the benefits were lawfully granted and that recovery after retirement was inequitable and unjustified.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Legality of Grant and Withdrawal:
The Supreme Court noted that the personal/promotional pay scale was granted only to Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Officers, not to other government servants, without any valid justification for such preferential treatment. The Court observed that the order granting these benefits was contrary to the Finance Department’s directives, which required 10 years of continuous service for similar benefits for other government employees. Thus, the State government was justified in withdrawing the benefit as it was inconsistent with general policy and lacked a rational basis.
Recovery from Superannuated Officers:
The appellants argued that recovery after superannuation was inequitable. The Court, however, distinguished the present case from situations involving weaker sections or cases where recovery would cause undue hardship. It held that Ayurvedic Medical Officers did not belong to a weaker section and had received benefits to which they were not entitled under the prevailing rules. Therefore, recovery was not inequitable, and the government was within its rights to reclaim the excess payments.
Procedural Fairness:
The Court found no procedural irregularity in the recovery process. The government had made it clear in earlier orders that the grant of the personal pay scale was subject to review and possible recovery if found inconsistent with policy. The officers were thus on notice regarding the provisional nature of the benefit.
Reference to Precedents:
The Court relied on State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, which allows recovery in cases where benefits are erroneously granted due to misinterpretation of rules and where the recipients are not part of a vulnerable group.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the recovery orders against the superannuated Ayurvedic Medical Officers, and affirmed the State government’s authority to withdraw and recover improperly granted benefits.
Significance
This judgment clarifies that government employees cannot retain benefits granted in violation of policy, even after retirement, unless recovery would be manifestly unjust or the recipients belong to a vulnerable section. It underscores the principle that administrative errors in granting benefits can be corrected through recovery, provided procedural fairness is maintained.
RELATED Blog
0 comments