The tribunal upheld that pay fixation complied with legal standards and recovery of excess payments was justified, with no undue hardship demonstrated.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr.Pramod Kumar Das, A.M.

The applicant challenging the illegal and incorrect interpretation of bunching benefit already given but decided to be taken back has filed this OA praying for following reliefs:

a) Quash the rough memo No. 77 dated 17.03.2020 issued by IAP under Annexure A/9 and Postmaster, Rayagada HO Letter No. RGDA/AC/IAP/SB-PS Nayak/2020 dated 17.03.2020 under Annexure A/10.

b) And pass appropriate orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with costs.

2. The brief facts of the case as inter alia averred by the applicant in the OA is that he had joined in the department of posts as Postal Assistant on 20.07.1997 and promoted to the post of Inspector of Post Offices from 03.09.2005. It is submitted that on implementation of 6th CPC his pay was placed in new pay structure i.e. scale of 9300-34800 in PB 2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- and his pay was revised and fixed as Rs. 14430/-. It is submitted that in the year 2017 in compliance to order of CAT, Ernakulam Bench order dated 16.10.2015 in OA No. 289/2013 an order was issued by Ministry of Communications, Depart3m ent of Posts vide letter dated 24.10.2017 for upgradation of Grade Pay of Inspector of Posts from 4200 to 4600/-. It is submitted that according to the instruction his pay was required to be re-fixed in accordance with OM in the 6th CPC structure in pay band/scale of Rs. 9300-34800 in PB 2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. It is submitted that the DDO fixed his pay by granting grade pay of Rs. 4600/- but without observing the correct provisions of Rules of CCS (RP) Rules 2008. It is submitted that his pay should have been fixed at Rs. 18460/- instead of Rs. 17140/- and the DDO admitted his error and submitted proposal of revision of his basic pay at Rs. 18460/- vide letter dated 23.08.2016 and the SPOs Bhadrak accepted the proposal vide letter dated 23.08.2018 and paid him all his arrears as per due and drawn statement dated 31.08.2018. It is submitted that applicant then was transferred to Rayagada Division where the Internal Audit Party came across his service book and raised objection on fixation of pay vide rough memo dated 17.03.2020 and directed Postmaster Rayagada HO to reduce the applicant pay from Rs. 76000/- to Rs. 70000/- and to recover the over payment of amount of Rs. 557114/-. It is submitted that vide letter dated 147 .03.2020 his pay was reduced and recovery order was passed. It is submitted that applicant submitted an appeal dated 18.03.2020 which was not considered. Hence the OA.

3. The respondents in their counter inter alia averred that It is submitted that the pay of the applicant was fixed in accordance with the instructions issued by Directorate from time to time and the claim of the applicant to fix his pay at Rs. 18460/- by including the benefit of bunching in the pre-revised scale in terms of Rule 7 (1) (ii) and 2 (A) is not admissible to rules. It is submitted that Department of Expenditure vide their letter dated 08.09.2018 has also clarified the same. It is submitted that recovery of wrongful/excess payment was made as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and ors vs State of Uttarkhand and ors 2012 AIR SCW 4742.

4. The applicant has filed rejoinder wherein while reiterating the points taken earlier he has inter alia averred that OM dated 24.10.2017 is self explanatory that the Grade Pay of IP was upgraded to Rs. 4600 in 6th CPC structure in terms of Para 7.6.14 and in the 6th CPC structure the GP of Rs. 4600/- has only one pre-revised scale of Rs. 57 450-225-11500 as per Section I of Part A of the First Schedule of Revised Pay Rules 2008 th