Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6212
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Manish Garg, J, Dr. Anand S Khati, A
Rakesh Kumar Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
O.A. No.2802/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S M Arif, Mr. Deepanshu Jain
For the Respondents: Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Mr. P K Singh, Mr. Amit Anand, Mr. Tanmay, Mr. Pratap Shanker, Mr. Ankit Kumar
Recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible when they are not at fault, as established by prior judgments.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme - Recovery of excess payments - The Tribunal quashed the order for salary refixation and recovery of excess payments, citing that the applicants were not at fault and that recovery beyond five years is impermissible in law, as established in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer). (Paras 3, 10, 13, 14)
(B) Legal Principles - Recovery of excess payments is not permissible when employees are not at fault, and the principle established in prior judgments reinforces the applicants' entitlement to their rightful pay. (Paras 3, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, pharmacists, challenged the order for salary refixation and recovery of alleged excess payments made under the MACP Scheme, arguing the recovery was unjustified as they were not at fault. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the recovery actions were unjustified and contrary to the settled position of law, directing the respondents to grant the applicants their rightful pay without recovery. (Paras 13, 14)
Issues: The main issues included whether the respondents had a valid basis for salary refixation and recovery of excess payments, and if the applicants were entitled to relief. (Paras 3, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the recovery actions were unjustified, aligning with prior decisions that protect employees from undue financial penalties, and emphasized the need for timely compliance with the order. (Paras 13, 14)
Result: The OA is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of macp scheme and its implications. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments against recovery of excess payments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondents' justification for recovery actions. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. court's analysis and comparison with previous cases. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. final decision and directions to respondents. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
“8.1 Quash and set- aside the Order dated 27.07.2021, issued by the Additional Director, DGHS, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vi de order ref. No. F .10( 6)/2018/MACP/pharmacist/fast-track committee 2053-69; and
8.2 Quash and set - aside the office orders and show cause notices issued against the Applicants in relation to re- fixation of salary and recovery of alleged excess payment; and
8 .3 Direct the Respondents to refund the amount to the respective Applicants against the amounts deducted from the salaries of the respective Applicants; and
8.4 Direct the Respondents to waive off the entire amount allegedly recoverable from the Applicants on the basis of office orders/show cause notices for re- fixation; and
8.5 Pass any further order in favour of the Applicants as deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Tribunal.”
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submits as under:-
2.1 The Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme was introduced by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) vide office memorandum dated 19.05.2009, with effect from 01.09.2008. The scheme replaced the earlier Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, and financial upgradations are granted to employees after completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of regular service.
2. The applicants, who are pharmacists, were granted a Non-Functional Grade, which was treated as the first MACP, as clarified by the DoPT on 10.06.2015. However, the respondents have arbitrarily refixed their salaries and initiated recovery of alleged excess payments without any valid basis.
3. Learned counsel argues that the recovery of excess payments is impermissible in law, especially when the applicants are not at fault. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) establishes that recovery beyond 5 years of payment is not permissible.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further relies on the following case laws/judgments of this Tribunal in support of his contention:
(i) OA No. 2307/2023, titled Poonam Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors., dated August 3, 2023. The judgment in the said OA has already been implemented by the respondents vide their letter dated 25.04.2025.
(ii) OA No. 1876/2021, titled Ramesh Kumar Sharma vs. GNCTD & Ors., dated October 11, 2023.
(iii) OA No. 1361/2015, titled Indian Railway Pharmacist Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., dated October 16, 2024.
5. Learned counsel highlights that the last- mentioned case, OA No. 1361/2015, titled Indian Railway Pharmacist Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., was decided by this very Division Bench on 16.10.2024. Learned counsel argues that these judgments, including the aforementioned ones, support the applicant's case and reinforce the contention that the respondents' actions in the present case are unjustified.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposing the grant of relief reiterates the averments made in the counter affidavit. He submits that order No. F-10(6)/2018/MACP/Pharmacist/Fast Track Committee/2053-69 dated 27.07.2021, issued by the Addl. Director (HQ/HOO), DGHS, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, clearly directed the subordinate offices under the jurisdiction of DGHS to recheck all cases of fixation of pay in respect of Pharmacists as per instructions/guidelines issued by DoPT, Govt. of India, and the Department. He further submits that the office orders regarding refixation of p
