Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4342
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
S. Sujatha, Judicial Member, Sanjiv Kumar, Administrative Member
B. Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00075/2025
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Pay Fixation and Increments
Act Referred
DOPT OM dated 7.12.2009
DOPT OM dated 6.12.2012
DOPT OM dated 24.7.2020
Headnote
(B) Recovery of excess payment - Group C employee - Recovery from pay unjust even if initially erroneous - Principles against recovery of excess payments from lower grade employees applied - Already partially recovered amount to be refunded. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
Applicant stenographer granted two advance increments on qualifying 120 w.p.m. speed test - Increments treated as pay for fixation post pay commission - Department later revised pay downward excluding increments from annual increment base, leading to recovery from salary - Applicant challenged via original application.
Findings of Court:
Original application allowed - Impugned letters and orders quashed - Applicant entitled to consequential benefits including refund of recovered Rs.20,000/- - Implementation within 12 weeks with interest if delayed.
Issues: (1) Whether advance increments qualify for annual increment computation; (2) Validity of downward pay refixation; (3) Legality of recovery.
Ratio Decidendi: 'Pay for all purposes' includes annual increments absent specific exclusion - Department's interpretation limiting to allowances alone unsupported by OMs - No recovery permissible from group C employee.
Result: Original Application allowed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.B.S.Venkatesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Shri.K.Gajendra Vasu
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. advance increments treated as pay for all purposes per dopt oms. (Para 2) |
| 2. applicant's service history and pay fixation events. (Para 3 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. court interprets oms: increments count for all purposes including drawal. (Para 8 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. respondents' contention: increments separate from basic pay. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. quash revisions, refund recovery, no recovery from group c. (Para 22) |
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
The Original Application is filed 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 Letters No. Pay Tech/Pay Fix/2876/2022 dated 14.12.2022 (Annexure A7) and No.Pay Tech/CPGRAM Con/2023 dated 22.9.2023 (Annexure A11) both passed by third respondent as also D.O. Part II order Ser No.Civ/D4/2023 dated 12.1.2023 (Annexure A8) passed by second respondent
(c) Declare that the applicant is entitled to annual increments on the advance increments granted to him till he gets promotion/ACP/MACP and direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to restore the original pay fixation
(d) Direct the respondents to refund the recovered sum of Rs.20,000 from his pay and allowances for the months of January and February 2023 forthwith together with interest on the said sum from January and February 2023 till the date of refund of the said amount.
(e) 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 OA in the interests of justice.”
2. The reliefs are claimed based on the following grounds:
“5.1. A perusal of DOPT OM dated 7.12.2009 (Annexure A2) is very clear that the Hon'ble President has accepted the aware of Board of Arbitration and held that the advance increments granted to Stenographers for passing 100/120 words per minute shall be treated as pay for all purposes. The applicant passed speed test at 120 words per minute and accordingly he was granted two advance increments by the second respondent treating it as pay for all purposes. A perusal of DO Part II dated 17.1.2010 (Annexure A3) clearly shows that the advance increments drawn on the basis of DOPT OM dated 7.12.2009. Therefore, there is nothing illegal about it and in that view of the matter the impugned letters/DO Part II are all arbitrary, unjust, illegal and unsustainable.
5.2. DOPT issued another OM dated 6.12.2012 again reiterating that the advance increments granted under DOPT OM dated 7.12.2009 will continue to be treated as a separate element in addition to basic pay till the official gets promotion or granted ACP/MACP. A true copy of this OM dated 6.12.2012 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A 14. Therefore, the applicant continued to be entitled for treating the advance increments as pay for all purposes including drawl of increments every year. From this angle also the impugned letter/DO Part II cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.
5.3. A similar OM was issued by DOPT on 24.7.2020 after VII Central Pay Commission recommendations was implemented and a copy of the said OM is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-15 In para 3(vi) it is again reiterated that the advance increments granted shall be treated as a separate element in addition to the basic pay and it should be counted as pay for all purposes. Therefore, the only condition that it becomes inoperative is when an official gets promotion or granted ACP/MACP and not otherwise. Therefore, the impugned letters/DO Part II orders are liable to be quashed and set aside.
5.4. Further in para 3 of OM dated 24.7.2020 it is stated that the Hon'ble President is pleased to decide that in supersession of all the existing orders/OMs/instructions/guidelines on the subject. Therefore, the entitlement of the applicant has been concretized by this OM. The co
