CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH Chandigarh, the 12 t h day of November, 2025 CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)

Satpal Sharma s/o Late Sh. Amarnath, aged 59 y ears r /o # 3 081, Sector 88, Block-D, Mohali, Punjab. (1381/CHG) (Group-C)

...Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. K.B. Sharma)

VERSUS

1. Chandigarh Administration through its Home S ecretary, U T.

Chandigarh, Sector-9, Chandigarh-160009.

2. The F inance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, U nion T erritory Chandigarh, Sector 9, Chandigarh-160009.

3. Director General of Police, Chandigarh P olice, S ector 9 , Chandigarh-160009.

4. Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh, S ector-9, Chandigarh - 160009.

5. Accountant General (A&E), U.T. Chandigarh, Sector-17, C handigarh -

160017.

…Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Navmohit Singh for R-1 to 4, Mr. H.S. Oberoi for R-5)

O R D E R

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. This Original Application has been filed under S ection 1 9 o f t he Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 assailing order d ated 0 6.07.2023 (A-5) to the extent ordering recovery from the a pplicant a nd a gainst communication dated 20.11.2023 (A-4) to the extent a ffecting r ecovery of Rs. 49,844/- from the DCRG of the applicant b e q uashed a nd s et aside.

2. Facts of the case in brief are as follows. T he a pplicant j oined Chandigarh Police on 18.10.1985 as Constable and w as p romoted o ver service on 01.05.2020 as ORP Inspector. The applicant h as a verred t hat before retirement, the respondents issued a No D ue C ertificate t o t he applicant ( Annexure A-1). Thereafter, the Pension P ayment O rder ( PPO) was i ssued (Annexure A-2), and his retiral dues including p ension w ere released w ithout objection. The applicant continues t o d raw p ension regularly.

3. The a pplicant has submitted that Chandigarh A dministration adopted the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) R ules, 2 021, d eemed effective from 01.01.2016, vide Notification d ated 2 7.08.2021, published o n 01.09.2021. Under Rule 6(1), employees w ere r equired t o submit Option Form for revised pay within the stipulated p eriod. T he time for exercising option was extended up to 31.12.2021. T he a pplicant submitted his option form for revised pay and consequential r evision o f arrears/retiral benefits.

4. Respondent No. 5 issued communication d ated 2 0.11.2023 revising the pension of the applicant (Annexure A -3). S imultaneously, the Accountant General issued a revised certificate ( Annexure A -4) directing that overpayment of Rs. 49,844/– may be r ecovered f rom t he DCRG o f the applicant. Consequently, this amount w as d educted f rom his DCRG without issuing any show cause notice, a ccording t o t he applicant.

5. Through RTI, the applicant received his service b ook a nd c ame t o know of order dated 06.07.2023 (Annexure A -5) w hereby t he respondents had rectified the earlier step-up o f p ay g ranted o n 16.06.2015 effective from 01.05.2008. The order f urther d irected t hat excess payment due to stepping-up rectification be recovered.

6. The applicant has averred that he had never m isrepresented f or stepping-up or for any fixation of pay, and his pay w as f ixed e ntirely b y the department. The applicant further contends that r ecovery i s b eing imposed after more than four years of retirement, w hich i s impermissible. The applicant further contends that n o o pportunity o f hearing or show cause notice was served despite t he r ecovery h aving civil consequences. T he applicant further contends t hat t he i mpugned order is contradictory and unsustainable as the respondents i ssued N o Due Certificate (A-1) in 2020, and no reason has b een p rovided a s t o why the stepping-up rectification surfaced only in 2 023. T he a pplicant further contends that the respondents have not demonstrated a ny f raud or misconduct by the applicant to justify the recovery.

7. The applicant has relied upon judgment passed b y H on’ble A pex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq