CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00170/2025 DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CORAM:

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

Narayanappa Chitragar, S/o late Lakshmana Chitragar, Aged about 59 years, T No. 2937, Machinist, 515 Army Base Workshop, Bangalore – 560 008 ... Applicant (By Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar, Advocate)

Vs.

1. Union of India represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, DHQ PO, New Delhi - 110 011

2. The Director General of EME (CIV), MGO Branch, Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence, DHQ PO, New Delhi - 110 011

3. The Commandant and Managing Director, 515 Army Base Workshop, Ulsoor, Bangalore - 560 008

4. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Civilians), No. 99, Dickenson Road, Bangalore - 560 042 .… Respondents (By Shri S. Prakash Shetty – through video conference, Advocate)

O R D E R (ORAL)

PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal (b) This Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned letter No. 20802/EST(IND) dated 27.07.2022 (Annexure: A5) passed by 3^rd respondent; letter No. LA/B/AN/515/SY/P&A/Arrears dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure A7) passed by 4^th respondent and letter No. 50608/MACP-A/FIN dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure A8)

passed by third respondent;

(c) This Hon’ble Tribunal be please declare that the proposed recovery as per Annexure A7 is arbitrary, unjust and illegal and further direct the respondents to immediately release the pensionary benefits without any recovery as per Annexure A7 (d) And grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs of this application in the interests of justice.

2. The facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that he was appointed as Turner Skilled in the 3^rd respondent Workshop on 19.11.1989 and he was promoted to the Post of Turner Highly Skilled (HS) with effect from 20.05.2003. Some of the employees who were appointed after 2002 approached this Tribunal seeking for their promotion from the date of the promotion of their juniors which was allowed, against which, Union of India approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition Nos. 31240/2015 and 53718/2016 which came to be disposed of holding that the respondents are free to review all promotions granted after coming into force of SRO 29/2006. It has been further observed that it is needless to mention that in case any situation arises for reversion of an employee, the respondents shall issue proper show cause notice before reverting any employee while finalizing the promotions keeping in view the Recruitment Rules. Consequent to which, the respondents have reviewed the promotions after issuing the show cause notices and considering the reply. The date of placement of the applicant as Turner HS I which was given from 01.01.2006 was reviewed and was placed at Machinist HS II with effect from 18.02.2006 and Machinist HS I with effect from 11.03.2016. The applicant retired voluntarily from service on 14.02.2025. The respondents have calculated the excess paid salary and allowances from 01.01.2006 till July, 2024 and an amount of Rs. 7,52,101/- is proposed to be deducted from the applicant's retirement gratuity.

Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. Learned counsel Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar representing the applicant submitted that the applicant joined service in the year 1989 and the reliance of the respondents on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court referred to supra is not applicable as the observation of the Hon’ble High Court is only to the extent of the respondents being free to review the promotions after coming into force of SRO 29/2006 which came i