CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CORAM:

Reserved on 15.01.2026 Pronounced on 21.0 1.2026 THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)

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

Durga Madhab Padhi, aged about 61 years, son of Late Shri Bhabani Padhi, Retd. Health Educator, ICMR at present residing At-Bada Brahmin Street PO/PS-Digapahandi, Dist.-

Ganjam, Odisha, PIVNE-7R6S1U0S1 2.

……Applicant

1. Union of India, represented through the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, At- Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, PIN-

110001.

2. Director General & Secretary, Department of Health Research, Indian Council of Medical Research, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, PIN-

110029.

3. Director, National Intitute of Malaria Research, Sector-8, Dwaraka, New Delhi, PIN-

110077.

4. Administrative Officer, National Institute of Malaria Research, Sector-8, Dwaraka, New Delhi. PIN-110077.

……Respondents For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel For the respondents : Mr. C.R.Behera, Counsel O R D E R PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

In this case, the applicant while working as Health Educator in a Research Project titled Integrated Disease Vector Control Project was in occupation in an accommodation provided by the Steel Authority of India (SAIL) bearing No. 8/78 (D/78) Sector-6 Rourkela, for the period from 16.10.2007 to 29.03.2019 and was also drawing HRA from ICMR. The applicant retired from service in the afternoon of 31.12.2022 and, thus, for the occupation and simultaneously drawing the HRA from the ICMR during the period, in question, an amount of Rs.5,67,233/- was withheld from his total amount of Rs. 18,80,802/- of DCRG. He having failed to remedy his grievance at the hands of the authorities, approached this Bench in the instant OA inter alia stating that the applicant being a Group-C employee and the payment of HRA, in argumendo, even if it is not due but paid without of his any attribution, recovery from DCRG amount has put him in a financial difficulty and, thus, is bad in law and, to fortify and justify his stand, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors Vs. District Judge, Cuttack and other, 2025 INSC 449. His prayer is to quash the order dated 24.01.2023 wherein an amount of Rs. 5,67,233/- has been shown to have been withheld from his Gratuity and to direct the respondents to refund the said amount with interest.

2. The respondents have filed their counter. In the counter, the respondents while not disputing the facts that an amount of Rs. 5,67,233/- was withheld from the DCRG of the applicant for residing in an accommodation owned and provided by the SAIL at Rourkela and simultaneously drawing of HRA for the period from 16.10.2007 to 29.03.2019 have stated that this OA is liable to be dismissed being hit by law of limitation provided under Section 21 of the AT Act; and, that, they have not recovered the said amount from the DCRG of the applicant rather they withheld the same awaiting final decision of the competent authority in respect of many employees including the present applicant. It has been stated that justifiability or otherwise of making recovery for drawl of HRA while in occupation of the quarters owned and provided by the SAIL came up for judicial scrutiny before this Bench in OA No 542/2020 (Gopal Krushna padhi Vs ICMR) and this Bench vide order dated 17.11.2023 did not inclined to interfere on the recovery and, accordingly, the OA was dismissed. It is stated that the present case being one and the same, is liable to be dismissed.

3. In course of submission, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant retired on 31.12.2022. He was issued with O.O. dated 23/24.01.2023 in which it is stated that an amount of Rs. 5,67,233/- has been withheld from his total DCRG amount of Rs. 18,80,802/-. Thereafter, applicant submitted representation on 22.03.2023. Since, nothing was communicated, he approached this Tribunal in the instant OA filed on 04.06.2024. It has also been stated t