The judgment establishes that periods of notional promotion must count towards regular service for financial upgradation eligibility under the MACP scheme, emphasizing equitable treatment of employees.

ORDER (ORAL)

In the instant OA, the applicants are seeking the following reliefs:

“i. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2023 and 03.08.2022 passed by the respondent No.3 (Annexure No.A-1).

ii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of present case.

iii. Award cost of the original application in favour of the applicants.”

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the applicant draws our attention to the order dated 14.03.2024 in OA No. 237/2022, CAT, Ahmedabad Bench, wherein the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 has been quashed and set aside. He further submits that the impugned order in the instant matter has been passed on the basis of the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 in OA No. 237/2022, which has been quashed and set aside by Ahmedabad and, therefore in light of the order in OA No. 237/2022 (supra) the impugned order in the instant matter also needs to be quashed and set aside and the OA deserves to be allowed.

3. Opposing the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments made in paras 7 , 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13 & 14, which read as under:

“7. That the content of the Para no. 4.12, 4.13, 4.14 and 4.150.A as concerned with the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab Vs Rafiq Masih , and matter of record needs no comment. However regarding the Recovery of excess amount paid to the employees, the Hon’ble Madras High Court vide Order dated OS.072019 in the case ofS. Thomas Granadura vs The Principal Secretary. [W.P. (MD) Nos. 9727 to 9729 of 2015] vide Para 7 has observed as under :

"7. In Chandi Prasad Uniyal's case (Supra), a specific issue was raised and canvassed. The issue was whether the Appellant-therein can retain the amount received on the basis of irregular/wrong pay fixation in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. The Court aftertaking into consideration the various decisions of this Court had come to the conclusion that even if by mistake of the employer the amount is paid to the employee and on a http://www.judis.nic.in later date if the employer after proper determination of the same discovers that the excess payment is made by mistake or negligence, the excess payment so made could be recovered. While holding so this Court observed at paragraphs 14 and 16 as under:

"14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as"tax payers' money" which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see whey the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to abona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reason like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.

16. The Appellant in the appeal will not fall in any of these exceptional categorie