Dr. Anita Ravindrannath Das v. The Chairman, Coir Board and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 2ND BHADRA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.28423 OF 2016(C)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **DR. DAS ANITA RAVINDRANATH AGED 55 YEARS W/O DR. SREEKUMAR DIRECTOR/RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING & EXTENSION CENTRAL COIR RESEARCH INSTITUTE KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN- 688 522 RESIDING AT:”TAPOVAN”, NO.88/GIRINAGAR NORTH EXTENSION KOCHI 682 020 BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.KALA T.GOPI SMT.T.N.SREEKALA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** > 1 **THE CHAIRMAN, COIR BOARD “COIR HOUSE” MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, COCHIN - 682016** 2 **THE COIR BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY “COIR HOUSE”, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, COCHIN - 682 016 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER** 3. **COIR BOARD, “COIR HOUSE” MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, COCHIN - 682 016 THE ACCOUNTS MANAGER** 4. **COIR BOARD, “COIR HOUSE” MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, COCHIN - 682 016 R1 BY SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN, CGC R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN CGC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.28423 OF 2016(C)** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 24[th] day of August 2020** The petitioner filed this writ petition at the time when she was working as Director/Research, Development, Training & Extension in the Coir Board. She retired from service on 31.3.2020. The writ petition was filed aggrieved by the reduction of her pay with retrospective effect from 7.8.1995. Exts.P1, P2 and P3 are the orders under challenge. 2. The petitioner joined Coir Board as a Senior Scientific Assistant. While working as Scientific Assistant, she was promoted as Senior Scientific Officer as per Ext.P5 order dated 24.8.1994 for the duration of the project on an ad-hoc basis. It was also ordered that in addition to her work as Senior Scientific Officer she shall continue to discharge her present functions. As per Ext.P6 order her pay was fixed under FR 22(1)(a)(i). The petitioner continued as a Senior Scientific Officer until she was regularly appointed with effect from 6.12.2007. It is stated that aggrieved by the denial of regularization of the petitioner as Senior Scientific Officer, she **WP(C).No.28423 OF 2016(C)** **3** had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.29457 of 2004, when the respondents stated that promotion was not granted because as per the recruitment rules, the method of appointment was direct recruitment. By Ext.P7 judgment dated 5.6.2006 this Court directed the respondent Government of India to consider whether it should go for direct recruitment or considering the service rendered by the petitioner for more than 14 years whether the Rules can be relaxed to enable regularization of the petitioner. On 7.8.2006, Ext.P8 letter was issued by the Coir Board informing that it has already addressed the Ministry of Agro & Rural Industries for amendment of the Rules enabling her promotion as Senior Scientific Officer on regular basis. It is stated that the Government of India thereafter issued orders relaxing the upper age limit. It is stated that the petitioner was thereafter appointed as Senior Scientific Officer by direct recruitment, granting her age relaxation, as per Ext.P10 order dated 6.12.2007. The petitioner continued as such and thereafter as per Ext.P11 order dated 4.1.2016 she was appointed as Director (RD&TE) at Central Coir Research Institute by direct recruitment. It is thereafter Ext.P1 order was issued pointing **WP(C).No.28423 OF 2016(C)** **4** out the mistakes found in the fixation of her pay for the period from 7.8.1995 onwards. It is stated that based on representation of the petitioner against the same, the Board cancelled Ext.P1 refixation as per Ext.P2 proceedings dated 27.4.2016. However, Ext.P3 proceedings were issued thereafter on 17.6.2016 again refixing her pay with effect from 17.8.1995. The petitioner has approached this Court at that stage and this Court passed an interim order on 26.8.2016 staying the proceedings for recovery. 3. According to the petitioner, she did not contribute towards her fixation of pay and she was being paid the pay attached to the post in which she was working. Therefore according to her the refixation of her pay and proposed recovery of the alleged excess pay after period of more than 10 years of the original fixation of pay are unjust. 4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit justifying the impugned orders, re-fixation as well as recovery pointing out that Exts.P1 to P3 orders were issued on the basis of findings in the audit in which it was found that the petitioner's pay was fixed without taking note of the adhoc promotions and the actual pay admissible to her in accordance **WP(C).No.28423 OF 2016(C)** **5** with law. The respondents have also produced Ext.R1(c) order pointing out that the petitioner has already relaxed as per that order issued on 20.10.2006 from the post of Senior Scientific Officer to that of Scientific Assistant with immediate effect. However, it was ordered that on reversion she will continue to work at CCR1 itself. According to the petitioner, despite the reversion she continued in the same post with the same status and monetary benefits and therefore it was not necessary for her to challenge the same. 5. The respondents have stated that the petitioner's appointment as Senior Scientific Officer was only with effect from 6.12.2007 and that was by direct recruitment and thereafter her appointment as Director was also by direct recruitment. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made available a copy of the office memorandum F.No.12/2/2017Estt(Pay-I) dated 5.8.2020 by which the Department of Personnel and Training has issued orders relating to protection of pay under FR 22-B(1) in respect of Central Government employees. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the said order is applicable to the petitioner and a **WP(C).No.28423 OF 2016(C)** **6** fixation of pay in the light of the aforesaid order would be beneficial to the petitioner. It is also stated that the said order governs the fixation of pay with effect from 1.1.2016. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that in an identical case from the coir board itself this Court had in W.P.(C) No.5469 of 2013 held that the recovery of the alleged excess pay after a long period is illegal. It is pointed out that in that case also there was a reversion similar to Ext.R1(c) and the pay was also fixed with effect from 13.7.1995 and the said judgment would squarely apply in the case of the petitioner and recovery cannot be allowed in the light of **State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Mash (White washer) and Others [(2015) 4 SCC 334]** . 8. Having heard the contentions it is seen that the case of the petitioner is also similar to that of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.5469 of 2013. In the case of petitioner, the refixation iwith effect from 7.8.1995 and recovery are ordered on the basis of the same in the year 2016. It cannot be said that the said alleged excess payment was on account of any fault on the part of the petitioner. Therefore going by the judgment in W.P. (C) No.5469 of 2013 and **[(2015) 4 SCC 334]** the recovery **WP(C).No.28423 OF 2016(C)** **7** ordered in Ext.P3 cannot be permitted. Therefore no recovery shall be made from the petitioner based on Ext P3 proceedings. Regarding the fixation of pay, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would submit a representation before respondents 1 and 2 claiming the benefit of the office memorandum dated 5.8.2020. In case such a representation is submitted within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the competent authorities under respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass orders on the question of fixation/refixation of pay of the petitioner within a further period of three months. In the meanwhile, the admitted pensionary benefits due to the petitioner shall be released. It is made clear that this court has not considered the claim of the petitioner on merits except with respect to the recovery. Writ petition is disposed of. **Sd/-** **P.V.ASHA** sab **JUDGE** **WP(C).No.28423 OF 2016(C)** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** P1: TRUE COPY OF PAY RE-FIXATION ORDER BEARING NO.A19/1/2015-ADM(P) DATED 01ST MARCH 2016, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.A-19/1/2015-ADM(P) DATED 27TH APRIL 2016, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT P3: TRUE COPY OF 'PAY RE-FIXATION ORDER” UNDER NO.C18/1/2016-ADM(P) DATED 17.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.CB/ACCTS/2011-12-1/2 DATED 22.7.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT P5: TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER BEARING NO.83 DATED 24.8.1994, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT P6: TRUE COPY OF PAY FIXATION ORDER BEARING NO.CB/ADM/91/10/1 (VOL.II) DATED 19.10.1994, ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER P7: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 05 JUNE 2006 IN W.P.(C) NO.29457 OF 2004 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT P8: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE COIR BOARD ADDRESSED TO THE MINISTRY OF AGRO & RURAL INDUSTRIES BEARING NO.CB/ADM/2004/2/7 DATED 7.8.2006 P9: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE MINISTRY OF AGRO & RURAL INDUSTRIES BEARING NO.2(25)/93-COIR/652 DATED 18TH AUGUST 2006 P10: TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER BEARING NO.44 DATED 6.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT P11: TRUE COPY OF OFFER-CUM-APPOINTMENT MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.A-22020/18/2015-ADM(P) DATED 04 JANUARY 2016 ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER P12: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 9.3.2016 P13: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 14.3.2016