The tribunal affirmed that recovery of excess pay due to erroneous fixation post-deputation must exhibit strict adherence to procedural guidelines and not impose undue hardship on employees.

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