Judgment :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The petitioner, who had joined service as a Hindi translator on 11th July, 1990 in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/-, asserted that his entire service career had been marked by honesty, diligence and satisfaction of the superior authorities. While discharging his duties, he was rewarded a personal upgradation with effect from 20th March, 1991, vide Office Order dated 25th August, 1998.

2. After about 14 months, the respondents issued another Office Order dated 2nd November, 1999, purporting to cancel the earlier upgradation. The petitioner promptly challenged the cancellation in W.P. No.105 of 2000, whereupon the Hon’ble High Court, by Order dated 14th January 2000, quashed the cancellation and directed the authorities to act in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was duly extended the first Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) benefit on 11th July, 2002 after completion of 12 years of service.

3. The petitioner’s pay was thereafter re-fixed in accordance with the recommendations of the Fifth and Sixth Central Pay Commissions. His Pay Scale moved from Rs.6,500-10,500/- and subsequently to PB-2 Rs.9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-, the fixation being finalised by Office Order dated 6th April, 2010.

4. Seventeen years after the earlier quashment and long after all benefits had crystallised, the petitioner was suddenly served with an Office Order/Show-Cause Notice dated 3rd May, 2017, alleging incorrect grant of upgradation and pay fixation and calling for recovery of alleged excess payment. The petitioner contended that:

i. The notice was issued without any reason, opportunity, or basis;

ii. The Director, Indian Museum had already pre-decided the issue, reducing the notice to a mere ritual;

iii. The Authorities failed to appreciate that the ACP Scheme was introduced only in 1999 and his first benefit under the scheme was granted strictly after completion of 12 years of service on 11th July, 2002;

iv. Benefits granted and acted upon for 15 to 19 years cannot be withdrawn in law, particularly in the absence of any misrepresentation;

v. Recovery of alleged excess payment is barred by Department of Personnel and Training vide its Office Memorandum dated 6th February, 2014 and the Supreme Court decisions in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 536.

5. The respondents’ belated action is vitiated by arbitrariness, delay, laches and violation of natural justice and constitutes an impermissible attempt to reopen settled issues which had attained finality by High Court’s earlier Order of 2000.

6. The petitioner asserted all financial upgradation, pay fixations and ACP benefits were lawfully granted, consistently acted upon by the employer and even justified by the respondents’ own communications including the Director’s letter dated 12th September, 2011. The petitioner, having retired in May 2023, submits that any recovery after such prolonged delay is manifestly unjust and unsustainable in law.

7. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner advanced the following submissions:

i. The impugned show-cause notice was challenged to be unsustainable in law. The official order/show-cause notice dated 03.05.2017 declaring the petitioner’s financial upgradation and pay fixation to be incorrect, was despotic and untenable, having being issued without reasons and without extending any opportunity of hearing. The notice reflected a decision already taken by the Director, thereby rendering the process, a mere formality evidencing, non-application of mind.

ii. Attempt to re-agitate, settled issues after 17 to 19 years should not be entertained. The first personal upgradation granted in 1998, effective from 1991 had already been adjudicated when its cancellation was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court on 14.01. 2000

iii. The respondents, by issuing the present notice, sought to circum