Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11959
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MRS. S. SUJATHA, J, DR. SANJIV KUMAR, A
Ms. Kiran P Mahajan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOs.170/00564/2024 | 170/00565/2024 | 170/00566/2024 | 170/00567/2024
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Service Matters
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Pay Fixation - Deputation - The tribunal held that an employee on deputation could opt for pay fixation options, yet only twice as per the relevant rules; subsequent recoveries without proper bifurcation of amounts were unjustified. (Paras 23, 40)
(C) Recovery of Excess Payment - The court applied principles from precedents regarding undue recovery based on erroneous pay fixation and highlighted the necessity for separate accounting in recovery demands. (Paras 37, 40)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, ex-deputy directors of UIDAI, contested recovery orders for excess payments made during their deputations due to disputed pay fixations related to their shift between pay scales and the duration of their deputation status.
Findings of Court:
The court partly allowed the original applications and directed reassessment of recovery claims linked to the shift of employment status beyond the 7-year timeframe of deputation, ordering any unjust recoveries to be refunded.
Issues: The core issues revolved around the validity of post-facto salary recovery following a specified deputation period and whether the processes followed by the authorities met legal requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The tribunal opined that explicit rules govern choices for pay fixation during deputation, and recovery orders must clarify the basis for any computations delineating the excess salaries drawn post-deputation, without unjust enforcement on applicants.
Result: Original Applications are partly allowed; unjust recoveries from beyond the deputation period must be returned forthwith.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.A.R.Holla
For the Respondents: Shri.S.Prakash Shetty, Shri.N.Amaresh, Shri.Vishnu Bhat
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of original applications and grounds for claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. analysis of relevant rules and provisions regarding pay fixation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. discussion on the process and validity of pay revisions. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. counterarguments regarding recovery of excess payments. (Para 35 , 38) |
| 5. final order on applicants' appeals and recovery of amounts. (Para 40 , 41) |
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
These Original Appli ion Nos. 170/00564/2024, 170/00565/2024, 170/00566/2024 and 170/00567/2024 are taken together for disposal as they have comparable facts and identical issues to be decided. For the purpose of ease, the facts of the O.A 564/2024 are taken as a lead case. These Original Appli ions have been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 claiming the following reliefs:
O.A 564/2024
“(a) To quash the Order F. No. TC- UID/ADMIN/GENERAL...
ADMIN/01/BLR/2016-17 dated 27.08.2024 issued by the respondent No.4, Annexure-A9,
(b) Direct the respondents to not recover any amount from the applicant in pursuance of the above order and refund the amount recovered, if any, with interest at 18% per annum to the applicant and
(c) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.”
565/2024
“(a) To quash the Order F. No. TC- UID/ADMIN/GENERAL..
ADMIN/01/BLR/2016-17 dated 27.08.2024 issued by the respondent No.4, Annexure-A9, (b) Direct the respondents to not recover any amount from the applicant in pursuance of the above order and refund the amount recovered, if any, with interest at 18% per annum to the applicant and (c) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.”
566/2024
“(a) To quash the Order F.No. TC- UID/ADMIN/GENERAL,
ADMIN/01/BLR/2016-17 dated 27.08.2024 issued by the respondent No.4, Annexure-A9, (b) Direct the respondents to not recover any amount from the applicant in pursuance of the above order and refund the amount recovered, if any, with interest at 18% per annum to the applicant and (c) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. ”
567/2024
“(a) To quash the Order F.No. TC-UID/ ADMIN/ GENERAL.
ADMIN/01/BLR/2016- 17 dated 27.08.2024 issued by the respondent No.4, Annexure-A9, (b) Direct the respondents to not recover any amount from the applicant in pursuance of the above order and refund the amount recovered, if any, with interest at 18% per annum to the applicant and (c) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The reliefs are claimed on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(i) to (iv) of the Original Appli ion. The brief facts narrated by the applicant are that the applicant, working in BSNL, was deputed to UIDAI to work as Senior Technical Officer. She assumed charge of the post on 02.04.2012. The deputation was for 3 years initially, which was extended till 30.09.2021. Her pay was fixed in IDA scale. Thereafter, she opted for fixation of her pay in CDA scale with effect from 01.01.2016 as per the procedure laid down under Rule 7(A) of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 which has been approved by the respondent No.3. Thereafter, the internal auditors raised objection with regard to fixation of her pay in CDA scale with effect from 01.01.2016. Based on the audit objection, the respondent No.3, decided to re-fix the pay of the applicant, reducing the same with effect from 01.01.2016. The applicant was repatriated to BSNL. Thereafter, the applicant challenged the order of re-fixation of his pay before this Tribunal in OA/170/308/2021.
3. This Tribunal allowed OA/170/308/2021 by an order dated 05.07.2023 and the respondent No.3 was directed to reconsider the case and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. However, the respondent No.4 issued a notice to the applicant dated 30.05.2024 asking him to explain as to why Rs.9,26,299/- should not be recove
