Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10538
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
Swapan Kumar Tapader – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. 350/00441/2025
For the Applicant: Mr. S.K. Datta
For the Respondents: Ms. A. Kundu
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees must adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot impose undue hardship.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Sub-Section (6) of Section 5 - Re-fixation of pay - Recovery of amount from gratuity - Original application seeks quashing of recovery based on erroneous fixation and seeks refund with interest. (Paras 2, 14, 25)
(B) Recovery of excess payment must reflect the principles of natural justice and should not cause undue hardship, especially when the employee is not at fault. (Paras 20, 24, 25)
(C) Principles established in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) case applied - Recovery from retired employees within five years deemed iniquitous. (Paras 9, 10, 22)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is a retired Survey Assistant whose pay was unilaterally reduced, resulting in a recovery from his gratuity, which he challenges based on a similar case adjudicated favorably.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal finds that the recovery is unjustified as the error lies with the respondents, and directs full refund with interest.
Issues: Whether the recovery of excess payment made is lawful; whether it adheres to the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The tribunal interprets that recovery of excess amounts post five years is arbitrary when initiated without fault from the applicant’s end, in alignment with the precedent from the Rafiq Masih case.
Result: The Original Application is allowed with directions for refund.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to recovery of gratuity. (Para 2 , 12 , 14) |
| 2. importance of fair procedures in recovery actions. (Para 3 , 4 , 8 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. comparison with similar cases. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. arbitrariness of recovery beyond five years. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. order to refund with interest. (Para 25) |
ORDER
In accordance with the order of the Hon’ble Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 10.09.2021 issued under Sub -Section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, this matter can be taken up by a Bench consisting of a single member. Accordingly, this matter is taken up for disposal by this Single Bench.
2. The applicant has filed this Original Application, seeking the following relief(s):
“a) An order quashing and/or setting aside the impugned reduction of pay of the applicant in February 2017.
b) An order directing the respondents to grant all consequential monetary benefits after restoring the pay of the applicant was drawing upto January 2017.
c) An Order directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.1,19,994/- recovered from Gratuity with interest.
d) An order directing the respondents to produce/cause production of all relevant records.
e) Any other order or further order/orders as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may seem fit and proper.”
3. Heard the Ld. Counsels and considered the material on record.
4. At hearing, Ld. Counsel for the applicant at the outset submitted that in this application, the applicant is only praying for an order directing the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.1,19,994/- recovered from him from his gratuity with interest, and that he is not claiming the relief(s) sought by him at Para 8 (a) and Para 8( b) of the original application. Keeping in view the above submission of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, this O.A is being taken up for disposal only with regard to the prayer of the applicant for refund of the amount of Rs 1,19,994/- that was recovered by the Respondents from his DCRG along with interest.
5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a retired Group B Non-Gazetted employee of the Survey of India and that he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2017, while serving in the post of Survey Assistant.
6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the basic pay of the applicant in January 2017 was Rs.64,100/- and that the same was reduced to Rs.60,400/ in February 2017 and an amount of Rs.1,19,994/- was recovered from the gratuity of the applicant. He further submitted that the applicant was informed just before his retirement, vide letter dated 20.02.2017 (Annexure A-2) that an amount of Rs.1,19,994/- may be recovered from his gratuity.
7. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that a similar recovery was made from the retirement dues of a colleague of the applicant, namely Shri Sadhan Ranjan Bhowmick, who had retired on 28.08.2019. Ld. Counsel submitted that the said Shri Bhowmick had moved the Guwahati Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 182 of 2020 and the same was allowed by the Tribunal, vide order dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure A-3). A challenge to the said order filed by the respondents in WP (C) 1093/2023 was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court at Guwahati, vide its judgement dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure A-4).
8. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is identically placed as the said Shri Sadhan Ranjan Bhowmick, and is covered by the order of the Guwahati Bench of the of this Tribunal dated 6th May, 2022 in O.A. No. 182 of 2020, which has not been interfered with by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in its judgement dated 26.06.2024, in WP (C) 1093 of 2023.
9. Ld. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the case of the applicant is clearly covered by the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensio
