Enter Keyword and Search






Wednesday, March 02, 2016

Recovery of wrongful and excess payments made to Government servants – Dopt orders on 2.3.2016

with 0 Comment
Recovery of wrongful and excess payments made to Government servants – Dopt orders on 2.3.2016


F.No.18/03/2015-Estt. (Pay-I)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training

New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2016

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Sub: Recovery of wrongful / excess payments made to Government servants.

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s OM No.18/26/2011-Estt (Pay-I) dated 6th February, 2014 wherein certain instructions have been issued to deal with the issue of recovery of wrongful / excess payments made to Government servants in view of the law declared by Courts, particularly, in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand And Ors., 2012 AIR SCW 4742, (2012) 8 SCC 417. Para 3(iv) of the OM inter-alia provides that recovery should be made in all cases of overpayment barring few exceptions of extreme hardships.

2. The issue has subsequently come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc in CA No.11527 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11684 of 2012) wherein Hon’ble Court on 18.12.2014 decided a bunch of cases in which monetary benefits were given to employees in excess of their entitlement due to unintentional mistakes committed by the concerned competent authorities, in determining the emoluments payable to them, and the employees were not guilty of furnishing any incorrect information / misrepresentation / fraud, which had led the concerned competent authorities to commit the mistake of making the higher payment to the employees. The employees were as innocent as their employers in the wrongful determination of their inflated emoluments. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 18 th December, 2014 ibid has, inter-alia, observed as under:

“7. Having examined a number of judgments rendered by this Court, we are of the view, that orders passed by the employer seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover. In other words, interference would be called for, only in such cases where, it would be iniquitous to recover the payment made. In order to ascertain the parameters of the above consideration, and the test to be applied, reference needs to be made to situations when this Court exempted employees from such recovery, even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Repeated exercise of such power, “for doing complete justice in any cause” would establish that the recovery being effected was iniquitous, and therefore, arbitrary. And accordingly, the interference at the hands of this Court.”

“10. In view of the afore-stated constitutional mandate, equity and good conscience, in the matter of livelihood of the people of this country, has to be the basis of all governmental actions. An action of the State, ordering a recovery from an employee, would be in order, so long as it is not rendered iniquitous to the extent, that the action of recovery would be more unfair, more wrongful,
more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer, to recover the amount. Or in other words, till such time as the recovery would have a harsh and arbitrary effect on the employee, it would be permissible in law. Orders passed in given situations repeatedly, even in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, will disclose the parameters of the realm of an action of recovery (of an excess amount paid to an employee) which would breach the obligations of the State, to citizens of this country, and render the action arbitrary, and therefore, violative of the mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

3. The issue that was required to be adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether all the private respondents, against whom an order-of recovery (of the excess amount) has been made, should be exempted in law, from the reimbursement of the same to the employer. For the applicability of the instant order, and the conclusions recorded by them thereinafter, the ingredients depicted in paras 2&3 of the judgment are essentially indispensable.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while observing that it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement has summarized the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law:-
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service).(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.
5. The matter has, consequently, been examined in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and the Department of Legal Affairs. The Ministries / Departments are advised to deal with the issue of wrongful / excess payments made to Government servants in accordance with above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA No.11527 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No.11684 of 2012) in State of Punjab and others etc vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. However, wherever the waiver of recovery in the above-mentioned situations is considered, the same may be allowed with the express approval of Department of Expenditure in terms of this Department’s OM No.18/26/2011-Estt (Pay-I) dated 6th February, 2014.

6. In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders are issued with the concurrence of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

7. Hindi version will follow.

sd/-
(A.K.Jain)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India

Authority :www.persmin.gov.in

CGEGIS Table 2016 – Finmin issued tables of Benefits for the savings fund for the period from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016

with 0 Comment
CGEGIS Table 2016 – Finmin issued tables of Benefits for the savings fund for the period from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016

No.7(1)/EV/2014
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Expenditure

New Delhi, Dated the 26th February, 2016

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Sub: Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme-1980 – Tables of Benefits for the savings fund for the period from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016

Every year two Table of Benefits are issued by the Ministry of Finance on calendar year basis for the savings fund to the beneficiaries under Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme (CGEGIS)-1980. While one Table of Benefits for the savings fund of the scheme is based on a subscription of Rs.10 per month per unit from 1.1.1982 to 31.12.1989 and Rs.15 per month per unit w.e.f. 1.1.1990 onwards, the other Table of Benefits for the savings fund is based on a subscription of Rs.10 per month in respect of the employess who had opted out of the revised rates of subscription w.e.f. 1.1.1990.

2. The two Table of Benefits under CGEGIS-80 for the calendar year 2016, prepared by IRDA, are enclosed. The benefits in the Tables have been worked out on the basis of interest @8.7% per annum (compounded quarterly), as notified by Department of Economic Affairs.

3. While calculating the amount it has been assumed that the subscription has been recovered or will be recovered from the salary of the month in which a member ceases to be in service failing which it should be deducted from accumulated amounts payable.

4. In its application to the employees of Indian Audit and Accounts Department this Office Memorandum issues in consultation with the Comprtroller and Auditor General of India.

sd/-
(Amar Nath Singh)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India


Authority: www.finmin.nic.in

Click to view the original order

NC JCM Staff Side meeting with Cabinet Secretary on strike Charter of demands on 1st March 2016

with 0 Comment
NC JCM Staff Side meeting with Cabinet Secretary on strike Charter of demands on 1st March 2016


Secretary General of Confederation Shri.M. Krishnan has published short outcome of the meeting held on today with Cabinet Secretary (Head of the Empowered Committee of Secretaries) in his official blog and the information is given below...

MEETING WITH CABINET SECRETARY

———-Empowered Committee of Secretaries headed by Cabinet Secretary has held first round of discussion with JCM National Council Standing Committee members on strike Charter of demands on 1st March 2016. Staff Side explained the justification of each and every demand and conveyed the large scale resentment among the Central Government Employees to the Cabinet Secretary . Cabinet Secretary has not made any commitment on any demand. He informed that this is only a preliminary interaction with the Staff Side.

Com. M. Raghavaiyya Leader Staff Side, Com. Shiva Gopal Mishra Secretary Staff Side and other Standing Committee members attended.

Confederation was represented by Coms. KKN Kutty , M. Krishnan & M.S. Raja .

Meeting commenced at 0645 P.M. & ended at 0845 P.M.

M. Krishnan 
Secretary General Confederation.



Disclaimer:As and when orders amending the rules are published by the Government, the amendment orders will be published in our blog immediately. Readers are requested to refer to the source link is given at the end of the post. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy of the content on this blog, the same should not be construed as a statement of law or used for any legal purposes. 90paisa accepts no responsibility in relation to the accuracy, completeness, usefulness or otherwise, of the contents. Users are advised to verify/check any information with the relevant department(s) and/or other source(s), and to obtain any appropriate professional advice before acting on the information provided in the blog. Links to other websites that have been included on this blog are provided for public convenience only. 90paisa is not responsible for the contents or reliability of linked websites and does not necessarily endorse the view expressed within them. We cannot guarantee the availability of such linked pages at all times.

Recent Posts