C PONNAMMAL Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is the appellant herein. She is a retired part-time Sweeper employed under the respondent-Bank. She was confirmed in 1/2 scale wages with effect from 1.12.1980. By order dated 6.6.1994, she was granted 3/4th scale wages under the Career Path Policy. She was granted an annual increment of Rs.100/- with effect from 1.10.1998. On 30.6.2002, she attained the age of superannuation and was, therefore, relieved from service. THE third respondent, by his letter dated 11.4.2002, requested the first respondent to sanction increment to the appellant with effect from 1.10.1999. To this, the first respondent replied on 5.6.2002 stating that fixation should be granted only in accordance with some specifications and any excess payment made should be recovered. THE terminal benefits were not immediately settled.

(2.) WHEN the appellant made a representation to the third respondent, she was furnished with a copy of the impugned order dated 5.6.2002, by which her pay was fixed and orders were passed for recovery of excess payment made to her. According to the appellant, her pay was unilaterally altered without any prior notice to her and though she had drawn Rs.2,265/- from 1.10.1998, her pay was fixed at Rs.2,026/-. She gave a detailed representation on 7.9.2002. The respondents replied that the pay fixation done by the Bank was correct and there was no mistake. The appellant requested the Bank to drop the proposal to recover the alleged excess payment from her terminal benefits. She claimed that if the Bank is allowed to recover the excess payment made, she would be put to irrevocable hardship and loss. No notice was given to her while re-fixing the pay and therefore, she filed a representation for quashing the order directing the recovery of excess payment and the re-fixation of pay without notice.

(3.) WHEN the matter came up for hearing on 7.1.2009, we asked the counsel for the appellant and the respondents whether we could direct the second respondent-Assistant General Manager to give an opportunity to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that instead of going before the authorities, the same exercise could be done here, since it is only a matter of calculation, to which the learned counsel for the respondents also agreed and it is in these circumstances that we have proceeded to determine as to what the proper pay should be. We have recorded the request of the learned counsel of the appellant that we could hear the matter and fix the pay on the basis of the calculation sheet given by both sides. At that juncture, we were not prima facie satisfied regarding the manner in which the Bank had done its calculation. Therefore, we directed the Bank to give us the working sheets to enable us to decide the matter. Accordingly, working sheets have been furnished by the respondents to enable us to decide the aforesaid question.