CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 18^th day of December, Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)

AND HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)

M. Joseph Eugene Raj Assistant Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal – 2, Department of Financial Services, th Ministry of Finance, 4 Floor, Dewa Towers, 770A, Anna Salai Chennai .. Applicant By Advocate Ms. Kanchana for M/s. Vijay Shankar Vs

1. Union of India rep by The Chief Executive Officer, NITI Aayog, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

2. The Under Secretary Government of India, Administration – II, NITI Aayog, Sansad Marg, New Delhi .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. K. Rajendran, SCGSC

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Challenging the impugned order, dated 16.07.2016 relating to refixation of his pay w.e.f. 13.07.2007 and consequential recovery, the applicant has filed the OA to quash the said order and to pass such other order as may be deemed fit and thus render justice.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:

The Applicant submits that he joined the Planning Commission in 1990 as a Technical Assistant. In May 1994, he was appointed as Senior Research Assistant, and in 1999, promoted on an adhoc basis as Research Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 8500–13500. The Applicant was granted his first ACP on 18.05.2006, but no financial benefit accrued since he was already drawing pay in the higher scale due to his adhoc promotion. On 13.07.2007, he was selected on deputation to the Census Department as Assistant Director, and was accordingly reverted to his substantive post of Economic Officer with pay protection. He returned from deputation in 2011. Meanwhile, he was regularly appointed as Research Officer w.e.f. 25.02.2010, and his pay was fixed in PB-3 (Rs. 15600–39100) with Grade Pay Rs. 5400/-. Subsequently, he was granted 2nd MACP on 18.05.2014, enhancing his Grade Pay to Rs. 6600/-. In September 2015, he was given adhoc promotion as Senior Research Officer, though without any pay increase due to the earlier MACP benefit. On 23.10.2015, the respondents issued a show cause notice proposing to refix his pay from 13.07.2007. The Applicant submitted a detailed objection on 06.11.2015. He was later selected on deputation as Assistant Registrar, DRT-2, and joined on 13.04.2016. However, on 16.07.2016, the impugned order was issued, refixing his pay from 13.07.2007 and directing recovery of the alleged overpayment. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant has filed the present OA challenging the recovery and refixation order.

3. The learned counsel for the Applicant contends that, as repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, recovery of excess payment is impermissible when pay fixation is made by the Government or Department without any fraud or misrepresentation by the employee. Since there was no fraud or misstatement by the Applicant, the impugned recovery is illegal and liable to be quashed.

4. The learned counsel further relies on DoPT’s Office Memorandum, dated 02.03.2016, which enumerates circumstances where recovery should not be effected. Clause (iii) specifies that if wrong fixation has continued for more than five years, no recovery shall be made. In this case, the pay fixation from July 2007 to July 2016 extended over nine years, far beyond the prescribed period. Hence, recovery and refixation are barred under the said OM.

5. It is further submitted that the pay fixation from 14.07.2007 was correct. The Applicant had already been drawing the scale of Rs. 8000– 13500 since 01.06.1999 due to his adhoc promotion as Research Officer, and thus, the 1st ACP granted w.e.f. 18.05.2006 did not entail any further enhancement.

6. She further submitted that the applicant was granted ACP benefits after 12 years, w.e.f 18.05.2006. Counsel also argues that as per ACP Scheme, upgradation under ACP is to be treated as regular promotion for all purposes. Therefore, the benefits granted under 1st ACP cannot be withdrawn mer