The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a decisive ruling, dismissed the writ petition filed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Srikakulam Division, and others (WP No. 11435 of 2009) challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) decision in favor of retired postal official, Sri K. Narayana Murthy. The judgment, authored by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay, reaffirmed key principles of fairness in recovery and entitlement under service law.
Background of the Case
Sri K. Narayana Murthy, a retired postal official, had served the department in various capacities, culminating in his appointment as a Higher Selection Grade-I (HSG-I) Assistant Postmaster on a regular basis from May 20, 2005, until his retirement on June 30, 2006. Earlier disputes arose concerning his pay fixation during periods of officiation and promotion, particularly under the Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) and Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) schemes.
In 2007, Murthy approached the CAT, Hyderabad Bench, after the department initiated recovery of alleged overpayments due to pay fixation discrepancies. The CAT, in its judgment dated November 19, 2008, ruled in his favor, directing the department to restore his pay and refund the recovered amounts.
Key Legal Issues
1. Entitlement to Pay During Officiation: The court examined whether Murthy, while officiating in HSG-I posts before his formal promotion, was entitled to the higher pay scale for the period.
2. Recovery of Alleged Overpayments: The legitimacy of recovering amounts deemed overpaid due to alleged errors in pay fixation was questioned, especially in light of binding precedents.
3. Finality of Previous Orders: The binding nature of an earlier CAT ruling (O.A. No. 11 of 1996) granting Murthy relief concerning pay fixation under Fundamental Rule 22 (FR 22) was pivotal.
Court Observations
1. No Recovery Without Justification: The court emphasized, “The respondent officiated in the post on the orders of the authorities, and for the period of officiation, he was entitled to pay in the cadre of HSG-I.”
2. Binding Effect of Earlier Judgments: Referring to the earlier CAT ruling in O.A. No. 11 of 1996, the court held that the matter of pay fixation was conclusively decided and could not be reopened.
3. Fair Entitlement: Justice Tilhari observed, “If a person is put to officiate on a higher post with greater responsibility, he is normally entitled to the salary of that post,” citing established jurisprudence from the Supreme Court.
4. Restoration and Refund: The court mandated the restoration of pay benefits and refund of recovered amounts with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the CAT order.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, instructing the department to comply with the CAT’s directions within four weeks. It further warned that non-compliance would attract penal interest.
