‘Even God heard Adam and Eve’: Orissa High Court quashes pay recovery ordered without hearing retired employee

Justices Krishna Shripad Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash noted that the retired employee did not get an opportunity to be heard. (Image is enhanced using AI)

Padhi was challenging the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, which upheld the decision of a screening committee to reduce his third Revised Assured Career Progression (RACP) grade pay.

The RACP policy is designed by the state government to act as a “financial safety net” for employees facing career stagnation, as promotions in government departments can be uncertain.

‘No opportunity of hearing’

• It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before the screening committee decided to recover the alleged excess amount. 
• The recovery of excess payment has civil consequences, and such a decision cannot be taken without complying with the principles of natural justice.

• Accepting this submission, the court quashed the order of the tribunal as well as the decision of the screening committee.
• The matter was remitted to the district education officer concerned for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within an outer limit of three months.

‘Recovery of money post-retirement’

• Padhi had joined the service as a statistical investigator in 1982 and was granted financial upgradations under the RACP policy after completing 10, 20 and 30 years of service.
• Accordingly, he was granted RACP-1 grade pay of Rs 4600, RACP-2 grade pay of Rs 5400 and RACP-3 grade pay of Rs 6600 with effect from March 1, 2013.
• However, after his retirement, a screening committee held that the grant of the third RACP grade pay was erroneous and reduced it from Rs 6600 to Rs 5400, directing the recovery of the excess amount paid to him.
• Aggrieved by this order, Padhi challenged the decision before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, but the tribunal rejected his application.
• Padhi moved to the high court following the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in October 2018.

Submission by parties

• Appearing for the petitioner, one of the advocates, P K Mohapatra, argued that his client belonged to group-C service and therefore, post-retirement, no recovery could have been ordered, whether the grant was made rightly or wrongly.
• Mohapatra further mentioned that recovery of this kind could not have been made without giving an opportunity of hearing, since recovery is a civil consequence which cannot be brought about in violation of the principle of natural justice.
• He relied on various Supreme Court rulings that restrict the recovery of excess payments from employees in certain situations.
• Representing the state, additional standing counsel J K Khandayatray resisted the petition, making submissions in justification of the tribunal’s order and the reasons on which it had been structured.
• He further pointed out that the petitioner had admittedly given an undertaking to refund any amount that he was not entitled to receive.

What is revised assured career progression (RACP) policy?

• The state government introduced a policy called the revised assured career progression policy (RACP), taking into account the uncertain promotional avenues and career stagnation of the state government employees. 
• The government devised this policy after careful consideration to implement a career advancement scheme for its employees.  
• There should be three financial up-gradations under the RACPS, counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service in a single cadre in the absence of promotion. 
• An employee who has completed 10 years of service in the entry grade will be considered for the first up-gradation under RACPS. 
• An employee who has completed 20 years of service and has received only one up-gradation, either by promotion or by RACPS, will be considered for the second up-gradation. 

• Similarly, an employee completing 30 years of service and having two up-gradations, either by RACPS or promotion or both, will be considered for a third up-gradation under RACPS. 
• The government has provided for the establishment of a screening committee to decide the eligibility of persons for upgradation under RACPS.