The Hon’ble Supreme Court permits the recovery of improperly received benefits from retired government officers.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Dr. Balbir Singh Bhandari v. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors., held that the state government has the right to recover entitlements received by the officer, as these entitlements were granted based on an order issued by the Principal Secretary on August 4, 2011, which was inconsistent with Finance Department orders.
The Division Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, concurring with the High Court's findings, refused to interfere with its decision. The Court upheld the state government's recovery order dated October 27, 2014, stating that the benefits were initially extended only to Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Officers, and no valid reason was provided for this preferential treatment.
Factual Background: The appellant, a superannuated Medical Officer, claimed the withdrawal of benefits under a subsequent decision by the State of Uttarakhand. The government had previously issued an order on February 5, 1998, acknowledging the service of Medical Officers on an ad-hoc basis for computing continuous satisfactory service. However, it stipulated that the benefit of personal pay would only be granted after regularizing their service.
The Finance Department's order on March 8, 2011, applied to all state service cadres, offering financial upgrades after 10, 18, and 26 years of continuous satisfactory service. The Principal Secretary's order on August 4, 2011, diverged from this by granting personal/promotional pay scale benefits to Ayurvedic Medical Officers after 8/14 years of service.
Observations and Conclusion: The Supreme Court observed that the order of August 4, 2011, creating a special class of Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Officers, was issued without Cabinet approval, leading to its cancellation on May 29, 2014. The Court supported the State Government's decision to cancel this order, as it was inconsistent with the Finance Department's guidelines.
Regarding recovery, the Court held that the personal time-bound pay scale granted in 2006 included a provision for recovery if the government made a contrary decision. It found no error in the State Government's view, stating there was no valid reason for granting a higher pay scale exclusively to Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Officers.
Addressing the refund issue, the Court agreed with the High Court that recovery would not be inequitable, as Ayurvedic Medical Officers were not considered part of a weaker section of society. The Court concluded by refusing to interfere with the High Court's judgment and specifying that the appellants were entitled to ACP benefits as per orders dated March 8, 2011, and July 1, 2013, with recovery to be made as specified in the October 27, 2014 order. The Appeals were dismissed accordingly.