Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14035
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member, Shalini Misra, Administrative Member
Dr. A Srinivasa Rao – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, Health Ministry of Health & Family Welfare – Respondent
OA/786/2020|OA/632/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, Mr. M. R. Tagore
For the Respondents: Ms. K. Rajitha, Sr. PC for CG, Mr. K. Ravikrishna Kanth, Addl. CGSC
Recovery of excess pay granted erroneously to medical officers upheld where they signed undertakings to refund; Rule 7(1)(B) of CCS(RP) Rules 2016 prevails over 14.29% hike claim; Jagdev Singh exception applies to informed Group 'A' officers.
Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 - Rule 7(1)
(B) - 7th Central Pay Commission - Non-Practicing Allowance - Pay fixation for medical officers - Initial pay fixation granting 14.29% hike held erroneous as not stipulated in Rule 7(1)
(B) or its illustrations; excess payment recoverable despite initial grant by department - Employees' undertaking to refund excess detected later binds them - Applicability to Group 'A' gazetted officers distinguished from running staff; no parity with railway employees. (Paras 10, 11, 13, 15)
(B) Recovery of excess payment - Supreme Court precedents - Where employee furnished undertaking at pay revision that excess payment would be refunded, recovery upheld even post-Rafiq Masih; exception carved in Jagdev Singh for informed consent via undertaking - No fraud or misrepresentation by employees; rectification of pay fixation valid to protect exchequer. (Paras 9, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
Medical officers and chief medical officers working under Central Government Health Scheme challenged notices proposing recovery of excess salary paid due to initial pay fixation with 14.29% hike post-7th CPC implementation w.e.f. 01.01.2016, claiming entitlement per resolution dated 25.07.2016; respondents sought recovery citing non-compliance with CCS(RP) Rules 2016, Clause 7(1)B, supported by employees' undertakings.
Findings of Court:
Impugned notices valid; pay fixation rectified as per Rule 7(1)
(B); excess payments recoverable w.e.f. 01.01.2016 per DoPT OMs; interim relief vacated.
Issues: Whether 14.29% pay hike at initial fixation mandatory for medical officers drawing NPA; validity of recovery post-undertaking given at pay fixation; applicability of Supreme Court judgments on recovery.
Ratio Decidendi: Pay fixation for NPA-drawing medical officers governed strictly by Rule 7(1)
(B) of CCS(RP) Rules 2016 excluding 14.29% stipulation; undertaking binds employees to refund excess; Group 'A' officers subject to recovery without inequity exception under Rafiq Masih, per Jagdev Singh.
Result: Original Applications dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties and advocates listed (Para 1) |
| 2. factual background of cghs doctors' pay fixation (Para 2) |
| 3. respondents justify excess payment recovery (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. applicants claim 14.29% pay rise entitlement (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. respondents rely on pay fixation undertaking (Para 9) |
| 6. ccs(rp) rules 2016 govern doctor pay fixation (Para 10 , 11) |
| 7. no 14.29% hike for cghs doctors; undertakings bind (Para 12 , 13) |
| 8. jagdev singh exception permits group-a recovery (Para 14 , 15) |
| 9. oas dismissed; interim relief vacated (Para 16 , 17) |
ORDER (COMMON)
(As per Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)
In OA/786/2020, the applicants sought following relief:
“…….:to declare that the proceeding / notice issued in Rc.No.CGHS/Hyd/Admn/2020-3306/307, dt; 24.9.2020 of the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside and pass such other order or orders or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
In OA/632/2020, the applicant sought following relief:
“…….to declare the action of the respondents particularly the 3rd respondent in issued the impugned recovery proceeding Rc. No.CGHS/Hyd/Admn/2020-3306/307, dated 24.9.2020 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law and consequentially the Hon'ble Tribunal may pleased to set aside or quash the same proc. Dated 24.9.2020 in respect of the applicant alone and may pass such other order or orders or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”
As the applicants in these OAs sought similar relief and the issue involved in these two OAs being similar, these OAs have been taken up together for hearing and a common order is being passed.
2. Brief facts of the case in OA 786/2020 are that the applicants are Doctors working in Central Government Health Scheme. They were appointed on various dates. Some of the applicants are working as Medical Officers and some of them are working as Sr. Medical officers and some are Chief Medical Officers in different wings i.e. Ayurvedic/ Allopathy/ Homeo and Unani. They have been drawing pay scales, as revised from time to time as and when the Government increased their pay scales. They have been granted non practicing allowance as well. During 2016, the 7th Pay CPC came into effect viz., w.e.f. 01.01.2016. In terms of 7th CPC, though the NPA payable to Doctors has been decreased, their pay has been enhanced by 14.29%. Accordingly, applicants have been drawing the same. While so, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dt: 24.9.2020 seeking to recover the amount from the salaries of the applicants by stating that they have drawn excess amount. Feeling aggrieved, they filed the present OA No.786/2020.
Similarly, the applicant in OA No. 632/2020 was appointed as Medical Officer vide order dt. 14.02.2000 under Central Health Service Scheme (CGHS) through UPSC and he joined the service on 07.07.2000. At present, the applicant is working as Chief Medical officer (NFSG) having been promoted to the said grade vide order dt. 22.11.2018 w.e.f. 11.02.2013 and drawing time scales from time to time. It is his contention that he is entitled for Non-Practicing allowance on par with other similarly situated employees working in the Railways as per clause 12 of the Resolution dated 25.07.2016 passed by the Dept of Expenditure. During 2016 the 7th Pay CPC came into effect viz. w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and in terms of 7th CPC, though the NPA payable to Doctors has been decreased, his pay has been enhanced by 14.29%. Accordingly, applicant is drawing the same. While so, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dt. 24.9.2020 seeking to recover the amount from the salary of the applicant by stating that he has drawn excess amount. It is submitted that the said notice dt. 24.9.2020 is illegal and arbitrary. The Applicant has never drawn any excess amount and he has been drawing salary as per his entitlement @ 14.29% increased from 1-1-2016, in terms of recommendations
