In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court delivered a verdict, setting a precedent to safeguard employees’ rights.
The case revolved around Badal Kumar Mandal, who was initially appointed as a technical assistant at the Indian Museum in 2001 and was subsequently promoted to the position of senior technical assistant in 2005. However, in a surprising turn of events in 2018, Mandal was reverted back to his original position, prompting him to challenge this decision through a writ petition.
Mandal’s petition argued against the Museum’s decision to revert his position, citing the autonomy granted to the Museum under the Indian Museum Act of 1910. Additionally, he contested attempts to reduce his terminal benefits or recover excess payments received by him.
The respondents countered, asserting the supremacy of Central government regulations over the Museum’s autonomy, particularly concerning pay scales and post re-designations.
Hearing both the sides, Justice Rajasekhar Mantha’s bench emphasised that regardless of the legality of pay scale upgrades, recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible, echoing the Supreme Court’s stance.
The court noted the resolution passed by the Museum’s Board of Trustees in 1992, indicating the Museum’s independence in such matters. It also recognised the directives issued by the Central government concerning compliance with a circular related to pay scales, underscoring the Museum’s obligation to adhere to these regulations.
Emphasising the petitioner’s right to terminal benefits based on his last position as senior technical assistant, the Court prohibited any attempts to diminish these benefits or reclaim excess payments. Citing the precedent set in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), where the Supreme Court ruled that regardless of the legality of pay scale upgrades, recovery of excess payments from the petitioner due to such revisions cannot be undertaken, whether during employment or afterward.
The ruling prioritised justice and employee welfare, ordering the calculation of Mandal’s terminal benefits based on his last-held position, senior technical assistant. Additionally, it barred any further reversions or attempts to recover excess payments, providing Mandal with much-needed relief and setting a benchmark for similar cases nationwide.
This verdict underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding employees’ rights and ensuring fair treatment in the face of bureaucratic complexities.
