Please consider this case. A central government employee got promoted to a higher post (with a change to a higher pay band) in July 2009. His pay was fixed according to the Sixth Pay Commission. Now, after four years, he is informed in July 2013 by his office that his pay was erroneously fixed higher in July 2009 and his revised (lower) pays re-fixed each July after 2009 are communicated to him. Now, my questions are:
(a) Due to the excess money paid to the employee over the last four years, the office has to make a recovery. On what basis/rates can the office recover monthly/quarterly/partially/fully amounts from the employee?
(b) In this particular case, there is no fault on the part of the employee. The moral question is why he should feel the agony of recovery (besides a reduction in pay) from his monthly salaries?
Any ideas/thoughts on the above would be helpful to understand the government procedure and guidelines in this regard.
From India, Dehra Dun
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1(a) Due to the excess money paid to the employee over the last four years, the office has to make a recovery. On what basis/rates can the office recover monthly/quarterly/partially/fully amounts from the employee?
(b) In this particular case, there is no fault on the part of the employee. The moral question is why he should feel the agony of recovery (besides a reduction in pay) from his monthly salaries?
Any ideas/thoughts on the above would be helpful to understand the government procedure and guidelines in this regard.
From India, Dehra Dun
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Dehra Dun
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please post on gconnect.in. I am a central government employee, and gconnect.in is for discussions by central government employees. The mistake should have been identified during the audit. I am just marking this post; I will provide a detailed reply soon.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Ravi,
This looks like a case where a patient is told by the doctors at a government 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This looks like a case where a patient is told by the doctors at a government 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Member,
The employer can deduct/adjust erroneous overpayment. The Payment of Wages Act 1936 section (7)(2)(f) also provides for the same as follows:
[(f) deductions for the recovery of advances of whatever nature (including advances for traveling allowance or conveyance allowance), and the interest due in respect thereof, or for the adjustment of overpayments of wages;]
However, the mode of deduction should not cause the employee to suffer, resulting in a drastic reduction in take-home pay. It should be in small installments, and any other tax liability (like Income Tax) on account of overpayment should be borne by the employer.
Regards,
Shailesh Parikh
Vadodara, Gujarat
99 98 97 10 65
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The employer can deduct/adjust erroneous overpayment. The Payment of Wages Act 1936 section (7)(2)(f) also provides for the same as follows:
[(f) deductions for the recovery of advances of whatever nature (including advances for traveling allowance or conveyance allowance), and the interest due in respect thereof, or for the adjustment of overpayments of wages;]
However, the mode of deduction should not cause the employee to suffer, resulting in a drastic reduction in take-home pay. It should be in small installments, and any other tax liability (like Income Tax) on account of overpayment should be borne by the employer.
Regards,
Shailesh Parikh
Vadodara, Gujarat
99 98 97 10 65
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 the 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 agonized 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 the 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 agonized 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Umakanthan,
I fully agree with your kind response to my query. However, just to elaborate on the case, the following may also be noted:
(1) The basic pay of the employee was fixed by his office on promotion to a higher post, and the corresponding Office Order was released during August 2009.
(2) Subsequently, another Office Order was released in November 2009, confirming the basic pay (fixed earlier by his office) by the audit party of the concerned Ministry.
(3) Now, after more than 3 years, another audit party of the same Ministry observes a discrepancy in the fixation of pay (Office Order in July 2013). Is it not surprising that there are two different opinions by the audit party of the same Ministry at two different times spanning more than 3 years?
(4) One can really wonder whether the 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I fully agree with your kind response to my query. However, just to elaborate on the case, the following may also be noted:
(1) The basic pay of the employee was fixed by his office on promotion to a higher post, and the corresponding Office Order was released during August 2009.
(2) Subsequently, another Office Order was released in November 2009, confirming the basic pay (fixed earlier by his office) by the audit party of the concerned Ministry.
(3) Now, after more than 3 years, another audit party of the same Ministry observes a discrepancy in the fixation of pay (Office Order in July 2013). Is it not surprising that there are two different opinions by the audit party of the same Ministry at two different times spanning more than 3 years?
(4) One can really wonder whether the 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 Tamil Nadu 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 arithmetical 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-tape, 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 Tamil Nadu 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 arithmetical 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-tape, 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
the question is not clear? less more what make ur question clear
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1. The excess payment made erroneously may be covered, not exceeding the monthly difference between the previous and current fixed amounts from the monthly salaries, while considering the total deductions ceiling under the Payment of Wages Act 1936.
2. Any Income Tax paid by the concerned employee on the excess payment, if applicable, should be the responsibility of the Section/Signatories accountable for making the excess payment to resolve the matter amicably.
R K Singh
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
2. Any Income Tax paid by the concerned employee on the excess payment, if applicable, should be the responsibility of the Section/Signatories accountable for making the excess payment to resolve the matter amicably.
R K Singh
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.