The court ruled that recoveries from retired employees must follow due process and cannot be arbitrary, reinstating their Grade Pay.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

The present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-

“a) An appropriate order or directions thereby directing the respondents to grant to Applicants third up-gradation under the MACP Scheme in form of grade pay of Rs.5400/- w.e.f. 01.09.2008 along with all the consequential benefits including revision of pension and terminal benefits thereof as well interest on arrears of salary, pension and terminal benefits and cost of litigation.

b) Any other, order or direction of such further orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The present O.A. is filed against the impugned inaction on the part of the respondents in granting the benefits of the MACP Scheme to the applicant in the form of up-gradation in the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in the pay scale of 9300-34800/- of the 6th pay commission w.e.f. 01.09.2008, on completion of more than 30 years of his service.

3. To strengthen her arguments, learned counsel for the applicants relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(c) 13934/2018 dated 10.01.2019 in the case of Jai Bhagwan Vashist vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation. She also relies upon the decision rendered by this Bench dated 20.11.2024 in O.A. No.723/2018 in the case of Sushil Kumar Tandon and Anr. vs. The Commissioner North Delhi Municipal Corporation. For the sake of brevity, the said order is reproduced as under:-

“By virtue of the present O.A., the applicants are seeking the following reliefs:

“a. issuance of direction to the respondent to quash the office order dated 13.12.2017 (which are ANNEXURE A-1 AND A2) wherein the respondent has rejected the representation of the Applicants seeking grade pay of Rs.5400/- and re fixation of their pension and terminal dues.

b. issue an order/direction to the respondent to restore the grade pay of Rs. 5400/- to the Applicants s as their last drawn pay and accordingly revise their pension and release the arrears accordingly with interest.

c. issue an order/direction to the respondent to release Rs.24,000/- to the Applicants No. which was deducted by the respondent with interest.

d. issue an order/direction to impose exemplary cost on the respondent.

e. and pass such other or further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. The learned counsel for the applicants contends that the impugned order was passed without any basis. The recovery was effected without issuing a show cause notice, resulting in the reduction of pension and consequent deductions in terminal benefits. She relies upon the judgment in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [(2015) 4 SCC 334] and the DoPT Circular dated 19.09.2022.

3. The applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2, retired on 31.12.2016 and 31.03.2017, respectively. The applicants rely on Annexure A/3 dated 18.11.2016, which read as follows:

“Consequent upon the concurrence of Deputy Controller Accounts KBZ dated 16.11.2016 & office order No.A.D.C. (Health) 2005/3260 dated 31.05.2005. Pay fixation of Sin.Sushil Kumar Tandon S/O Sh. Ramlal Tandon (P.H.I) has been Re-fixed in the pay scale 9300-34800+G.P-4800 & 9300-34800+G.P- 5400 w.e.f 01.01.2006 is as under:-

DNI:- Going to be Retired on 31.12.2016

Above Pay fixation is subject to final acceptance by Audit. Overpayment/recovery, if any, will be recoverable to him at any stage.”

4. Applicant No. 1’s Grade Pay was fixed at Rs. 5400/-, and similarly, Applicant No. 2’s Grade Pay was also fixed at Rs. 5400/-. She further contends that juniors of the applicants