CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH CAMP AT NAGPUR This the 25^th day of March, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

Badri Prasad Dwivedi, S/o Late Chhannu Lal Dwivedi, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Retired, R/o Plot No. 37, Narmada Colony, Katol Road, Nagpur 440013 …Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. D.N. Mathur)

Versus

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.

2. Mineral Exploration and Consultancy Limited, (Formerly Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited), (A Government of India Enterprise) Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Bhawan, High Land Drive Road, Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440006 Through its Chairman Cum Managing Director.

3. General Manager (HR), Mineral Exploration and Consultancy Limited, (Formerly Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited), Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Bhawan, High Land Drive Road, Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440006.

…Respondents Nicky Digitally signed (By Advocate: Mr. M.D. Samel)

ORAL ORDER

Per: Justice M. G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the relief of setting aside the notice dated 04th February, 2023 whereby an amount of Rs. 3,37,653 (in words Three Lakhs thirty seven Thousand and six hundred and fifty three only) has been recovered and for direction to refund the said amount.

2. Shorn of details, facts are that the applicant superannuated on 30th November, 2021. At the time of superannuation, he was working as General Manager (Stores and Disposal) with Mineral Exploration and Consultancy Limited (MECL), a Government of India undertaking, respondent nos. 1 to 3.

3. After two years of retirement, the applicant got a notice dated 04^th February, 2023 (Annexure- A-1) by virtue of which he was informed that an amount of Rs. 3,37,653/- is to be recovered and the said amount has been adjusted against the applicant’s Performance Related Pay (PRP) amount payable to the applicant for the year 2020-21 and from withheld amount, if any, and the balance amount payable is Rs. 2,60,071/-. This order is challenged in this OA.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that this recovery is totally against the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) AIR (SC) 696. He submits that no recovery at the time of retirement or post retirement of an official/officer is permissible. Learned counsel further submits that the DoPT has issued Office Memorandum dated 19^th September, 2022 encompassing the situa which recovery is permissible and recovery is not permissible. He submits that this OM covers the recovery pertaining to all the Classes of Officers i.e. Group ‘A’, Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’.

5. The respondents filed their reply stating that the Circular dated 13th September, 2017 was issued regarding revised Principle of Grant of Annual Increment on promotion in which it was stated that “to maintain the date of annual increment of an employee depending upon the date of joining throughout the career until and unless it is changed due to disciplinary action or unauthorized absenteeism from duty as per the extant rules.”

6. According to the respondents, this created an anomaly and to correct the anomaly, a resolution was taken by the Board on 04^th November, 2022 by which the Circular dated 13^th September, 2017 was rolled back and the overpayment that was made to the employees was recovered. Applicant was one of such employees and, therefore, this amount was recovered from him.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.

8. So far as recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,37,653/- is concerned, it is not in dispute that this was recovered after the retirement of the applicant from the amount payable to him on account of PRP. The question that I am called upon to answer is whether such recovery is permissible after retirement.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) for the p