The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for recovery of excess payment, emphasizing the impermissibility of recovery from an employee in Class III category and the inapplicability of an undertaking to a fixation made in the past.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the impugned order passed in O.A./310/01172/2015 dated 27.07.2022 and quash the same.

V. Lakshminarayanan, J.

1. The 1st respondent, who is the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A./310/01172/2015, challenges the order of recovery of amount of Rs.2,05,571/- and for already recovered amount of Rs.19,000/-. The recovery order was passed on 24.06.2016.

2. The facts leading to the Original Application are the applicant/1st respondent was recruited as Causal Labourer by the respondents/Writ Petitioners. While doing Lineman''s duty, he was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector (Operative) in the year 1997. On and from 01.10.2000, the Post and Telegraph Department was bifurcated from the Department of Telecommunication and an entity called “Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited” (BSNL) was created. On 10.04.2000, the applicant/1st respondent was promoted to the post of Telecom Mechanic. There were two upgradations, which he enjoyed one in the year 2004 and other in the year 2011.

3. At the time of pay revision/promotion, options were called for from the applicant/1st respondent. He gave an option within the time period. This seems to have been the procedure followed by the Department of Telecommunication and other Central Government Departments as per the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules.

4. When BSNL was created, it was by an agreement between the Department of Telecommunication and BSNL. It was agreed that the assets and liabilities including staff were transferred to BSNL. It was further agreed upon that the Rules and Regulations of the Department of Telecommunication will be applicable to BSNL till the new rules were framed by the latter.

5. The applicant/1st respondent as per the option, opted for fixation of pay in terms of Fundamental Rules 22(I)(a)(1). His pay was fixed, even while he was working in the Department of Telecommunication. It was the case before the Tribunal that without giving any notice, the respondents/Writ Petitioners reported excess payment of Rs.2,05,571/- and commenced recovery of sum of Rs.19,000/- per month commencing from June 2016 to 30th April 2017. The applicant/1st respondent alleged that he came to know the recovery only after recovery orders were implemented. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 (white washer case), the applicant/1st respondent approached the Tribunal to set aside the order of recovery and for consequential benefits.

6. The respondents/Writ Petitioners filed a reply stating that consequent to the implementation of the pay scale in accordance with the Department of Telecommunication, [DTO], New Delhi dated 28.09.2000, the applicant/1st respondent''s pay was fixed at Rs.3,710/- in the upgraded scale of Rs.3,200/- 85 – Rs.4,900/- on 01.04.1998 and to Rs.3,795/- on 01.04.1999. Inadvertently, it was fixed at Rs.4,050/- instead of Rs.3,880/- on 01.04.2000. They further stated that it was only in the year 2016, they came to know that the pay anomaly had been wrongly fixed for the applicant/1st respondent and found pay fixation from 01.04.2000 and subsequent to 01.04.2000 were wrong. Hence, they issued pay fixation memos and calculated over payment. The pay was revised from 01.04.2000 till the date of order i.e., 22.02.2016. As per revision, it was reduced from Rs.3,880/- to Rs.4,050/-.

7. The respondents/Writ Petitioners admitted fitment of pay was done during the time, the applicant/1st respondent was working with the DOT. It had been by virtue of wrong fixation by that Department. It is also stated that Department had suo motu fixed Rs.19,000/- per month as the monthly amount to be recovered. It was also decided to recover the balance from the superannuation benefits as the applicant/1st respondent retired on 30.04.2017.