The Andhra Pradesh High Court has nullified a recovery order issued against a retired postal officer. The officer was found entitled to the pay of a Higher Selection Grade-I (HSG-I) Postmaster while officiating in that role, even though he had not completed the required three years in the HSG-II cadre.
The case involved a writ petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) judgment that had already quashed the recovery order. The High Court bench, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay, upheld the Tribunal’s decision.
The respondent was promoted to HSG-II in March 2001 on a notional basis and posted as an assistant postmaster at the Srikakulam Head Office. Subsequently, he was promoted to HSG-I on an ad-hoc basis in February 2004 and later on a regular basis in May 2005. He retired in June 2006.
However, during the processing of his pension, objections were raised by the director of accounts (Postal). The objections centred around irregular pay fixation and premature promotion to HSG-I before completing three years of service in HSG-II. Consequently, recovery orders were issued to reclaim excess payments made to the respondent.
The High Court noted that the respondent had officiated as HSG-I under orders from the competent authorities. Therefore, he was entitled to the pay and allowances of the higher post during the officiating period. The Court emphasised that an employee performing duties with greater responsibility is typically entitled to the corresponding pay scale.
The Tribunal’s directive for the respondent to receive pension and other retirement benefits based on his HSG-I promotion was also upheld. The Court found no irregularity in the fixation of the respondent’s pension, as he was promoted to HSG-I on a regular basis before his retirement.
The Court referenced several judgments to support its stance, affirming that an individual officiating in a higher post is entitled to the associated pay. These included rulings from the Supreme Court and previous High Court decisions, which established similar principles regarding pay entitlements during officiation.
The Court dismissed the petition challenging the CAT order. It concluded that the recovery of excess payments was unwarranted, as the respondent had served in the higher role under official directives.
This decision underscores the legal protections for employees who fulfil higher responsibilities and ensures that their entitlements are not unfairly withheld or recovered.
