REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE (RCC) Vs. GANGA DEVI C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals are filed challenging the judgments of the learned single Judge that declared that the recovery effected by the appellant-Regional Cancer Centre (for short 'RCC') from its employees alleging erroneous payment in the fixation of pay was illegal. Writ Appeal Nos.869/2022, 670/2022, 676/2022, 680/2022, 761/2022, 790/2022762/2022 and 791/2022 were filed by RCC challenging the judgment which declared that recovery from the retirement benefits granted to the writ petitioners was illegal, with a further direction to release the amounts recovered from their gratuity and leave surrender.

(2.) The facts, leading to the above cases are as follows:- The writ petitioners in all these cases are retired employees of the Regional Cancer Centre (RCC), all of whom were granted the assessment promotions on completion of 5 and 8 years, under the Time Bound Grade Promotion (TBGP Scheme). The employees were also given promotion under the Flexible Complementing and Ladder Promotion (FCP and LP) which replaced the TBGP Scheme. The petitioners were thus promoted and granted enhanced pay on the basis of such promotion. While so, the pay scale of the employees of the RCC was made at par with the Sree Chithira Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST). The consequential pay revision was also ratified by the Government as per order dtd. 17/6/2000 with effect from 1/1/2007. The 6th Central Pay Band (CPC) was implemented for the non-academic staff in the RCC as per Government Order dtd. 3/11/2009 and monetary benefits were also made available from 1/1/2007. The Government also passed an order dtd. 8/1/2004 providing for notional fixation of pay to protect the service increments earned and accordingly the pay scales of the employees were revised.

(3.) Thereafter, a Three Member Committee was appointed to find out the anomalies in the fixation of the pay scale of the employees in the SCTIMST and RCC and to suggest corrective measures. The Committee suggested review of the assessment grade promotions granted to the non-academic staff and to fix their pay in the corresponding revised scale of pay, without granting the benefit of revised pay scales effected during the period from 1/3/1997 to 21/12/2005. Although the appellant issued proceedings based on the recommendations of the Committee, the same was not implemented as the appellant itself had sought a review of the recommendations. While so, the writ petitioners superannuated on various dates. After their retirement, provisional pension sanction orders were issued based on the provisional pay fixation order in tune with the Three Member Committee's recommendations which had the effect of lowering the pay scale of the employees and ignoring the TBGP granted for the 10 years completed service and as a consequence the fixation made as per the 6th Pay Commission Pay Band was stated to be wrong and the basic pay of the employees was sought to be lowered. The appellant also accorded sanction for recovering amounts allegedly paid in excess to the employees, all of whom by the time had retired. The recovery was directed to be effected from the petitioners' retiral benefits. It was these actions of lowering the scale, and effecting the recovery of the amounts alleging that they were in excess that were challenged in the writ petitions.