CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (Arising out of OA 260/00025/2022; order dt. 03.12.2025)

OCOrdReAr Mda: ted : 02.01.2026 THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)

THE HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)

1. Union of India represented through It's Secretary to Govt. Of India, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

2. The Chief PMG, Odisha Circle, At/Po-

Bhubaneswar GPO-751001, Dist-Khurda.

3. The Director of Accounts (Postal), Mahanadi Vihar, Nayabazar Road, Cuttack-753004.

4. The Postmaster, Bhadrak HO, At/Po/Dist-

Bhadrak. VERSUS . ...…Review Applicants Bijay Kumar Mohanty aged about 55 Years, S/o-late Sukadeb Mohanty, ward No-15, Kuansh, Post/PS/Dist-Bhadrak, Pin-756100 at present working as DSP, Koraput.

….…Review Respondent For the applicant : Mr. J.K.Nayak, Counsel For the respondents : None O R D E R PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, M(ECMirBcuElRat (ioAnd)m n.):

This RA has been filed seeking review/Recall/modification of the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 260/00025/2022. In terms of the Rule 17 (3) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 th and the Notification dated 18 February, 1992 issued by Hon’ble Chairman in exercise of power conferred under Section 5, 12 and 22 of the A.T. Act, 1985, this RA has been placed by the Registry for consideration on circulation.

2. From the record, it is discernible that Sri Bijay Kumar Mohanty, review respondent herein, had filed OA No.

260/000“2(a5) /T2o0 d2ir2e cwt itthhe trheesp foonlldoewntisn tgo prera-ryeevrisse: the basic pay of the applicant at the appropriate amount of Rs 18880/ as on 01.01.2006 in accordance with Rule-7 of CCS (RP) Rules-2008 and pay the consequential amount of arrear within a definite time period with interest for delayed period.

(b) Or in the alternative direct the Respondents not to reduce the basic pay of the Applicant from Rs 17520/- as on 1.1.2006 and quash the notice dated 22.11.2021 and Rough Memo dated 06.11.2021.

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

3. This Bench vide order dated 03.12.2025 disposed of the OA 260“/70. 00I2t w5/a2s 0n2ot2 t hwei tcha steh eo ff othlelo pwreinsegn dt iarpepclticioannts :a s also in the case of Khageswar Mallick (supra) that any of his junior was drawing higher pay than him to claim the benefit of ‘Stepping-up of Pay’. Hence, we see no ground as to how the decision of Jayashree Anil Satheye (supra) will touch the opinion and decision already made by this Bench in the case of Khageswar Mallick (supra). Therefore, the prayer of the present applicant to direct the respondents to re-revise his basic pay at the appropriate amount of Rs 18,880/- as on 01.01.2006 in accordance with Rule-7 of CCS (RP) Rules-2008 or to direct the Respondents not to reduce his basic pay from Rs 17,520/- as on 01.01.2006 by quashing the notice dated 22.11.2021 and Rough Memo dated 06.11.2021 is rejected.

8. However, it may be mentioned that the prayer for recovery was rejected by this Bench in the case of Khageswar Mallick (supra) for not fulfilling the ingredients fixed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vrs Rafiq Masih, (2014) 13 SCR 1343, and DoP&T Office Memorandum No. 18/03/2015-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 02.03.2016, we find, in the present case, the respondents sought to recover vide letter dated 22.11.2021 from January, 2006, which is obviously beyond five years of the payment and, thus, this case is covered by conditions stipulated in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and DoP&T OM dated 02.03.2016 and, thus, is barred and, therefore, the respondents are hereby directed not to effect any recovery.”

4. Review Applicants/departmental authorities seeks to review the aforesaid order inter alia stating that the observation of the Bench that the case in OA 25/2022 is covered under the conditions stipulated in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vrs Rafiq Masih, (2014) 13 SCR 1343, is not correct sin