Please consider this case. A central government employee got promoted to higher post (with change to higher pay band) during July 2009. His pay was fixed according to the Sixth Pay Commission. Now, after 4 years, he is informed during July 2013 by his office that his pay was erroneously fixed higher in July 2009 and his revised (lower) pays re-fixed on July each year (after 2009) are communicated to him. Now, my questions are -
(a) Due to excess money paid to the employee during last 4 years, recovery has to be made by the office. On what basis/rates, the office can recover monthly/quarterly/partially/fully amounts from the employee?
(b) In this particular case, there is no fault on the part of employee. The moral question is why he should feel the agony of recovery (besides reduction in pay) from his monthly salaries?
Any ideas/thoughts on the above shall be helpful to understand the Government procedure and guidelines in this regard.
From India, Dehra Dun
1(a) Due to excess money paid to the employee during last 4 years, recovery has to be made by the office. On what basis/rates, the office can recover monthly/quarterly/partially/fully amounts from the employee?
(b) In this particular case, there is no fault on the part of employee. The moral question is why he should feel the agony of recovery (besides reduction in pay) from his monthly salaries?
Any ideas/thoughts on the above shall be helpful to understand the Government procedure and guidelines in this regard.
From India, Dehra Dun
And what about higher income tax paid during last 4 years due to higher fixation of pay? How that can be adjusted during the period/years of recovery?
From India, Dehra Dun
From India, Dehra Dun
Pls post in gconnect.in i am a central govt employee and gconnect.in is for discussion by cg emp.
During audit the mistake must have been identified. Just marking this post i will post a detailed reply soon
From India, Madras
During audit the mistake must have been identified. Just marking this post i will post a detailed reply soon
From India, Madras
Dear Ravi,
This looks like a case where a patient is told by the Doctors at a Govt. Hospital - please come to my private clinic if you want treatment!
I find it sad that you chose someone's query on CiteHR to be the platform for marketing another forum. I am sure the same is against the rules here.
Moderators - please review and act.
From India, Mumbai
This looks like a case where a patient is told by the Doctors at a Govt. Hospital - please come to my private clinic if you want treatment!
I find it sad that you chose someone's query on CiteHR to be the platform for marketing another forum. I am sure the same is against the rules here.
Moderators - please review and act.
From India, Mumbai
Dear Member
The employer can deduct/adjust erroneous over payment.
Payment of wages Act 1936 s(7)2)(f) also provides for the same as under:
[(f) deductions for recovery of advances of whatever nature (including advances for travelling allowance or conveyance allowance), and the interest due in respect thereof, or for adjustment of over-payments of wages;]
However the mode of deduction should not be that the employee suffers- his take home reduces drastically. It has to be in small installment and of course any other tax liability on (Like IT) account of over payment should be borne by the employer.
Regards
Shailesh Parikh
Vadodara, Gujarat
99 98 97 10 65
From India, Mumbai
The employer can deduct/adjust erroneous over payment.
Payment of wages Act 1936 s(7)2)(f) also provides for the same as under:
[(f) deductions for recovery of advances of whatever nature (including advances for travelling allowance or conveyance allowance), and the interest due in respect thereof, or for adjustment of over-payments of wages;]
However the mode of deduction should not be that the employee suffers- his take home reduces drastically. It has to be in small installment and of course any other tax liability on (Like IT) account of over payment should be borne by the employer.
Regards
Shailesh Parikh
Vadodara, Gujarat
99 98 97 10 65
From India, Mumbai
Dear Cpk
As a retired State servant, I agree with the view of Ravi.On promotion, normally a G.S is granted a notional increment in his lower scale and the new basic is fixed at corresponding stage in the higher scale ensuring a minimum percentage of hike. At the time of promotion, sometimes if an increment is due, people are permitted to opt to avail that and get the pay fixed after some time.Therefore, it is possible that his pay should have been fixed wrongly by mistaken interpretation of fixation rules.However such mistakes would be detected in the audit later. Rectification is none other than revised fixation and recovery of excess payment.Hence, my answers to your queries are:
(a) Mere lapse of time is not an excuse for recovery of excess payment due to wrong pay-fixation in Govt. service.There were incidents that when pension proposals were processed by the A.G's Office prior to the retirement of some Govt. servants, such defects were noticed and due to want of time for recovery, individuals were asked to remit the entire excess payment in lump-sum before the dates of their retirement.So, the period of recovery of excess payment is depending upon the length of service of the individual.
(b) Since it is a financial irregularity resulting in more periodical payments to the individual than what he is entitled to, revised fixation as per rules and recovery of the excess payment are logical accounting principles of rectification and as such the question of morality has no room.I am not inclined to appreciate the fact that the individual is agonised for what he is to repay is what is not due to him.It is imperative that every govt. servant should be aware of the service rules and that's why barring the basic service, all govt servants whether they belong to class I or other lower services, are mandated to pass the Department Tests during their period of probation itself.
From India, Salem
As a retired State servant, I agree with the view of Ravi.On promotion, normally a G.S is granted a notional increment in his lower scale and the new basic is fixed at corresponding stage in the higher scale ensuring a minimum percentage of hike. At the time of promotion, sometimes if an increment is due, people are permitted to opt to avail that and get the pay fixed after some time.Therefore, it is possible that his pay should have been fixed wrongly by mistaken interpretation of fixation rules.However such mistakes would be detected in the audit later. Rectification is none other than revised fixation and recovery of excess payment.Hence, my answers to your queries are:
(a) Mere lapse of time is not an excuse for recovery of excess payment due to wrong pay-fixation in Govt. service.There were incidents that when pension proposals were processed by the A.G's Office prior to the retirement of some Govt. servants, such defects were noticed and due to want of time for recovery, individuals were asked to remit the entire excess payment in lump-sum before the dates of their retirement.So, the period of recovery of excess payment is depending upon the length of service of the individual.
(b) Since it is a financial irregularity resulting in more periodical payments to the individual than what he is entitled to, revised fixation as per rules and recovery of the excess payment are logical accounting principles of rectification and as such the question of morality has no room.I am not inclined to appreciate the fact that the individual is agonised for what he is to repay is what is not due to him.It is imperative that every govt. servant should be aware of the service rules and that's why barring the basic service, all govt servants whether they belong to class I or other lower services, are mandated to pass the Department Tests during their period of probation itself.
From India, Salem
Dear Mr. Umakanthan,
I fully agree with your kind response to my query. However, just to elaborate the case, the following may also be noted -
(1) Basic pay of the employee was fixed by his office on promotion to higher post and corresponding Office Order was released during August 2009.
(2) Subsequently, another Office Order was relased in November 2009 confirming the basic pay (fixed earlier by his office) by audit party of the concerned Ministry.
(3) Now, after more than 3 years, another audit party of the same Ministry observes discrepancy in fixation of pay (Office Order in July 2013). Is it not surprising that there are two different opinions by audit party of the same Ministry at two different times spanned by more than 3 years?
(4) One can really wonder whether earlier fixation (August 2009 and November 2009) was correct or the current one (Office Order in July 2013) is correct?
Kind Regards.
From India, Dehra Dun
I fully agree with your kind response to my query. However, just to elaborate the case, the following may also be noted -
(1) Basic pay of the employee was fixed by his office on promotion to higher post and corresponding Office Order was released during August 2009.
(2) Subsequently, another Office Order was relased in November 2009 confirming the basic pay (fixed earlier by his office) by audit party of the concerned Ministry.
(3) Now, after more than 3 years, another audit party of the same Ministry observes discrepancy in fixation of pay (Office Order in July 2013). Is it not surprising that there are two different opinions by audit party of the same Ministry at two different times spanned by more than 3 years?
(4) One can really wonder whether earlier fixation (August 2009 and November 2009) was correct or the current one (Office Order in July 2013) is correct?
Kind Regards.
From India, Dehra Dun
Dear Cpk,
First, I admit that the Central Govt. Employees Service Rules are not familiar to me. However, I made an attempt based on my presumption that as per Art. 309 of the Constitution the service rules of employees of Central and States are similar and my answers are based upon the Tamilnadu Govt Servants Fundamental Rules only. As you've pointed out,interpretations may differ from person to person.Here in the State, bills are presented to the Treasury for payment.The Treasury will verify the bills as to their admissibility in terms of their maintainability and arithmatical accuracy.Apart from this there would be annual office inspections by superiors and audit by A.G's office. Thus, a system of multiple checks and balances is there .Even then, cases like you have mentioned happen inadvertently at times. Owing to the ubiquitous red-tapesm, percolation of information about the latest amendments and authoritative clarifications down the level is always belated.So there are conflicting and contradictory interpretations always.Better consult a person well-versed in Central Govt.Establishment matters.
From India, Salem
First, I admit that the Central Govt. Employees Service Rules are not familiar to me. However, I made an attempt based on my presumption that as per Art. 309 of the Constitution the service rules of employees of Central and States are similar and my answers are based upon the Tamilnadu Govt Servants Fundamental Rules only. As you've pointed out,interpretations may differ from person to person.Here in the State, bills are presented to the Treasury for payment.The Treasury will verify the bills as to their admissibility in terms of their maintainability and arithmatical accuracy.Apart from this there would be annual office inspections by superiors and audit by A.G's office. Thus, a system of multiple checks and balances is there .Even then, cases like you have mentioned happen inadvertently at times. Owing to the ubiquitous red-tapesm, percolation of information about the latest amendments and authoritative clarifications down the level is always belated.So there are conflicting and contradictory interpretations always.Better consult a person well-versed in Central Govt.Establishment matters.
From India, Salem
1. The excess payment done erroneously may be covered not more than the monthly difference of the previous and current fixations from the monthly salaries, keeping in view the ceiling of total deductions under Payment of Wages Act 1936.
2. The Income Tax paid by the employee concerned on the excess payment, if any, should be borne by the Section/Signatories responsible for making
excess payment to settle the issue amicably.
R K Singh
From India, Delhi
2. The Income Tax paid by the employee concerned on the excess payment, if any, should be borne by the Section/Signatories responsible for making
excess payment to settle the issue amicably.
R K Singh
From India, Delhi
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
RECOVERY OF DEBTS DUE TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT, 2009.doc