In K. V. Gopalakrishnan vs Union of India & Others, the Supreme Court, while restoring the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision, held that pensioners should not be compelled to seek judicial intervention due to administrative lapses of their employers. The Court criticised the government for withholding retiral dues and ruled that such conduct was unjustified, especially when the employee had no role in the erroneous grant of benefits.
Background:
K. V. Gopalakrishnan served as a Quality Assurance Officer in the Textiles Committee under the Ministry of Textiles and retired after nearly 37 years of service on 30 November 2017. He received three financial upgradations — two under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) and one under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS).
On 5 March 2012, the appellant was granted Grade Pay of Rs.7600 under the third MACP. However, more than five years later, the Ministry issued a show-cause notice alleging wrongful grant of higher Grade Pay and withheld Rs.1.90 lakh from his gratuity on retirement, claiming recovery of the supposed excess payment.
Aggrieved, Gopalakrishnan approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that he was entitled to the Grade Pay of Rs.7600 under the MACPS and directed restoration of the benefit and refund of the withheld amount. The Union of India challenged this order before the Karnataka High Court, which reversed the Tribunal’s decision. A subsequent review petition was also dismissed.
Court Proceedings and Observations:
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan heard the appeals arising from the Karnataka High Court’s orders.
Advocate Bina Madhavan, appearing for the appellant, relied on the Office Memorandum dated 9 September 2010 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, which clarified that an employee who received Rs.6600 as Grade Pay under the second ACP was eligible for Rs.7600 as Grade Pay under the third MACP.
The respondents, represented by Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, cited Union of India v. Mukti Singha (2018), relying on a clarification by the Railway Board that financial upgradations should not exceed the Grade Pay admissible through regular promotion.
Rejecting this reliance, the Supreme Court clarified that the Railway Board’s order did not override the central O.M. dated 9 September 2010 and was not applicable to employees under the Ministry of Textiles. The Court held:
“It seems inexplicable that the High Court failed to consider the scope, effect and import of O.M. dated 9th September, 2010… Such omission even remotely does suggest non-application of mind.”
Criticising the respondents for failing to place the relevant O.M. on record before the High Court, the Bench observed:
“The respondents did not approach the High Court by making a full disclosure… and have been successful in obtaining a favourable order in a manner which cannot but be frowned upon.”
Referring to its decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015), the Court stated:
“A pensioner should not be made to suffer unnecessarily for the remissness of his employer. We expect the Government/employer to uphold pensioners’ rights and bring smiles on their faces, not force them to seek intervention of the Court.”
Decision:
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order. It directed:
- Refund of the withheld Rs.1.90 lakh with interest at 6% per annum within one month.
- Recalculation of retiral benefits based on Grade Pay of Rs.7600, and payment of the resulting amount with interest at the same rate within two months.
The connected appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the review petition was rejected, with the Court citing Order XLVII Rule 7 of the CPC and Sandhya Educational Society v. Union of India (2014) 7 SCC 701, which bars an appeal against an order dismissing a review petition.
The Bench also clarified:
“Since the core issue has not been determined by us, this order shall not be treated as precedent.”
