Excess payments made to employees without fault or misrepresentation cannot be recovered, especially after significant time has elapsed.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri Sridhar Tummalapudi, learned Central Government counsel for the petitioners.

2. There is no representation for the respondent Nos. 1 to 19.

3. This Writ Petition under article 226 of the constitution of India was filed by the petitioners challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (in short "Tribunal") in O.A.No.348 of 2012 passed on 02.08.2012.

4. The O.A. was filed by the applicants/respondent Nos. 1 to 19. They had challenged and prayed to set aside the recovery ordered by the 4th respondent therein/4th petitioner herein/Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhimavaram Division, on the ground of alleged excess amount paid to the applicants earlier, calculating the Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) on the basis of cycle beat, commencing the recovery from the month of August 2011 @ Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) uniformly from all the applicants which also resulted in reduction of pay of the applicants (TRCA) with retrospective effect from 01.03.1998. They further prayed for direction not to reduce their pay and not to make consequential recoveries as also to refund the amounts already recovered from the month of August 2011, with all the consequential benefits.

5. The respondent Nos. 1 to 19 were working as Gramin Dak Sewaks (in short "GDS") officials in various places in Bhimavaram Division (West Godavari District). They were initially appointed as Extra Departmental Agents (later on called GDS Officials). They were working for decades and the remuneration/Time related continuity allowance, was being paid to them on the basis of actual workload calculated on the basis of foot-beat, basing on the orders of the Union of India rep. by the Director General, Posts, Department of Posts, New Delhi, that those appointed earlier to 01.11.1987 were to be paid according to the TRCA calculated on foot-beat basis. As per the instructions the TRCA of all the G.D.S., other than BPMs was fixed according to their actual workload on cycle norms with effect from 01.03.1998. Also for those, who were pre-01.11.1987 it was calculated on cycle beat norms. The TRCA of the GDSs was revised to II-Scale of TRCA and in view of revision, excess TRCA was found to have been paid to some GDSs during the period 01.03.1998 to 31.10.2003.

6. In Tamilnadu Postal Circle, on such issue of the excess amount, O.A.No.1011 of 2001 was allowed by CAT, Madras Bench. To maintain uniformity the Directorate vide letter No.14-16/2001-PAP dated 06/11.09.2002 directed to calculate TRCA as per cycle beat formula except for those in hilly areas and areas where beats are non-cycleable. Consequently, in the case of the applicants excess amounts of TRCA was found to be paid for the recovery of which in Bhimavaram Division also the order for recovery was passed.

7. Some other similarly situated GDS in Gudur (NL) division also filed O.A.No.398 of 2007 before the CAT, Hyderabad, which was also disposed of vide order dated 31.01.2008, upholding the reduction of TRCA but directing to refund the excess payments already recovered. The Union of India, challenging the order dated 31.01.2008 filed W.P.No.25675 of 2008 which was disposed of by this Court on 06.07.2009, upholding the order of the CAT, Hyderabad and directing to refund the amounts already recovered. Accordingly, the amounts already recovered were refunded vide memo dated 06.11.2020. The respondent Nos. 1 to 19 requested for the same benefit to be extended to them but the petitioners, without issuing any show cause notice and without indicating the amount proposed to be recovered from their pay, commenced recovery from the month of August 2011.

8. The respondent Nos. 1 to 19 submitted that in the case of similarly situated GDS Officials, the CAT, Chennai held that the TRCA may be reduced based on correct beat formula, but the amounts already paid to the officials, when there was no misrepresentation by the employees, should not be recovered.

9. The O.