To
The
Chairman,
Coal
India Ltd
Coal Bhawan
Premise No-04 MAR,
Plot No-AF-III,Action Area-1A,
Newtown,Rajarhat,Kolkata-700156
Premise No-04 MAR,
Plot No-AF-III,Action Area-1A,
Newtown,Rajarhat,Kolkata-700156
Sub: Deduction of
stagnation increment of retired executives of CIL from the payable PRP
amount-reg.
Respected Sir,
This is to draw your kind
attention to the office memorandum no. CIL/GM (P)/OM/PRP/B-788 dated 8th
June 2016 issued by GM (Personnel), CIL, wherein following direction regarding payment
of PRP to retired executives of CIL after deduction towards stagnation
increment pertaining to pay revision of executives prior to 1.1.2007
(1997-2006).
Quote
“If the separated executive
was granted excess stagnation increment, the same may be adjusted from the
payable PRP amount and the balance amount be released.”
Unquote
In this connection, I, one of the retired
executives of CIL, humbly request and appeal to your kind self the following
for favorable consideration:
1.
The
matter relates to stagnation increment paid against pay revision w.e.f
01.01.1997, which is around 20 years old case.
2. The stagnation
increment was never paid in excess as being interpreted, it was paid
to the executives consequent to Pay Revision w.e.f 01.01.1997 in accordance to
the Circular No. CIL/C-5A(vi)005/35/101dated 22/27 September 2000 issued by Coal India Ltd. which states that “the
executives who reach the maximum of their pay scales would be granted up to a
maximum of three stagnation increments. ”
3. The letter No.
CIL/C-5A(iv)/DPE/PR/4127 dated 25/29.10.2013 of GM(Personnel), CIL addressed to
CMDs of all the Subsidiaries of CIL on
the subject: Granting of Stagnation increment as per Pay Revision of
Executives w.e.f.01.01.1997 , wherein it was observed that in a
number of cases stagnation increments have been granted consecutively for 3
years on reaching the maximum of scales instead of granting at alternate years
most probably due to mis-interpretation of OM of DPE regarding Pay Revision of
Executives w.e.f. 01.01.1997.
In this context, it may kindly be noted that in
the DPE OM No. 2(49)/98-DPE (WC) dated 25th June, 1999 regarding
Revision of scales of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1997 of Board level posts and below Board
level posts including non-unionised supervisors in Public Enterprises, it is
mentioned that “there will be a provision for grant of up to a maximum of
three stagnation increments for those who reach the maximum of their scales.” It is not mentioned that the
stagnation increment should be paid alternate year. Therefore, the
stagnation increment paid to the executives of CIL w.e.f. from 01.01.1997 was
very much in accordance with the CIL circular as well as DPE guidelines. In
the aforesaid letter of GM(P), CIL dated 25/29.10.2013, reference has been made to Clause no.5(i) and
(iv) of an OM No. 2(34)/12-DPE(WC)-GL-XX/12 dated
14.12.2012 issued by Department of Public Enterprises, wherein it has been
stated that “If any stagnation increments were given to the executives
either in 1997 or in 2007 pay revision, the same should have been granted only
after reaching the maximum of the prescribed scale and once in two years, with
a maximum of three such stagnation
increments only.”
How far it is justified to implement a
circular issued by DPE after a lapse of more than 12 years of issuance of
Guidelines for Pay Revision of Executives w.e.f. 01.01.1997?
4. There are
cases in which recovery on account of stagnation increment may not be possible.
Number of executives have retired/expired between period 01.01.1997 till
01.01.2007, who were also paid stagnation increment but were not eligible for
PRP, how will CIL recover the same from such executives?
5. In yet another
situation, executives who have been paid full amount of PRP for the period
2007-08 and 2008-09 and have since retired, how the stagnation increment amount
will be recovered?
6. In
this connection, we would like to draw your kind attention towards a judgement
of the Double Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11527
of 2014 in similar type of case, relevant excerpts of which are furnished
below:
Quote
It is not
possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees
on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the
employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the
decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the
following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be
impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and
Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or
employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess
payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of
recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has
wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been
paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work
against an inferior post.
(v)
In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if
made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an
extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to
recover.
Unquote
7. We
would also like to bring to your kind notice to the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016
issued by Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Personnel
& Training Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions on the subject:
Recovery of wrongful / excess payments made to Government Servants.
This
Office Memorandum has also deliberated on the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014, and gave the following directive:
The
matter has, consequently, been examined in consultation with the
Department of Expenditure and the Department of Legal Affairs. The
Ministries / Departments are advised to deal with the issue of wrongful /
excess payments made to Government servants in accordance with above
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA No.11527 of 2014 (arising out
of SLP (C) No.11684 of 2012) in State of Punjab and others etc vs Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) etc. However, wherever the waiver of recovery in the
above-mentioned situations is considered, the same may be allowed with the
express approval of Department of Expenditure in terms of this Department’s
OM No.18/26/2011-Estt (Pay-I) dated 6thFebruary,2014.
In so far as persons serving in the Indian
Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders are issued with
the concurrence of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
It is understood that this issue is under
deliberation at the competent level and the matter is to be considered by the
CIL Board to take a final decision on deduction or otherwise of stagnation
increment paid to retired CIL executives.
In this connection, it may be
appreciated that the retired executives of CIL, who have given their everything
during their service period for the unprecedented growth of CIL
resulting in entitlement for payment of PRP, feel deprived that rightful
payment of PRP has not been made so far although such payment has been made to
the serving executives about a month back. You may also be kindly aware that
the retired executives are already in financial crisis for their livelihood sustaining
on meagre pension amount and payment of PRP will marginally ease the financial
situation.
In
view of the points placed above, we request your kind self to consider
releasing payment of PRP payable to the retired executives of CIL without
further delay.
Thanking
You,
Yours faithfully,
(BINAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAV)
Retd GM(E&M), CMPDI, RI-II, Dhanbad
Employee No. 90015652
Copy for kind information and
favourable action:
1. Director
(Personnel), Coal India Ltd
2. Director
(Technical), Coal India Ltd
3. Director(Marketing),
Coal India Ltd
4. Director(Finance),
Coal India Ltd
5. CMD,
CMPDI, Ranchi
6. CMD,ECL,
Asansol
7. CMD,
BCCL, Dhanbad
8. CMD,
CCL, Ranchi
9. CMD,WCL,
Nagpur
1. CMD,
SECL,Bilaspur
1. CMD,
NCL, Singraulli
1. CMD,
MCL, Sambalpur
