Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4511

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU

O.A.No.170/00392/2023

Order Reserved on: 26.3.2026

Date of Order: 07.04.2026

CORAM:

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

HON’BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

J.Umadevi,

Age: 57 years,

D/o Jalakantan,

Working as Private Secretary,

Prasar Bharati,

DoordarshanKendra,

Bangalore-560006,

Residing at;

No.13, 30th Cross,

Tilak Nagar MainRoad,

Jayangar 4th Block,

Bangalore-560041 … Applicant

(By Advocate: Shri.P.Kamalesan)

Vs.

1. Union of India, Reptd by Secretary,

Ministry of Information & Broad Casting "A" Wing,

Shastri Bhavan,

New Delhi 110001.

2. Directorate General,

S-VI section,

All India Radio,

Akashavani Bhavan, Parliament Street,

New Delhi-110001

3. Additional Director General,

Prasar Bharathi, Doordarshan Kendra,

J.C.Nagar, Bangalore-560006

4. Deputy Director General,

Doordarshan Kendra,

J.C.Nagar,

Bangalore-560006 …Respondents

(By Advocate Shri.S.Prakash Shetty)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.Kamalesan
For the Respondents: S.Prakash Shetty

Recovery of excess salary payments from a non-erring employee is impermissible if initiated after a significant and unexplained administrative delay, as it renders the recovery action inequitable, harsh, and arbitrary, particularly when the employee has retired from service.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Recovery of excess payment - Employee not responsible for erroneous fixation - Recovery initiated after significant delay (7 years post-detection) - Applicability of Rafiq Masih principles - Held, recovery would be iniquitous and harsh - Respondents directed to refund any amounts recovered and conduct departmental inquiry against defaulting officials for the lapse. (Paras 6, 8, 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a retired government servant, challenged the recovery of excess salary payments caused by erroneous pay fixation occurring between 2006 and 2013 due to incorrect bunching of increments. Although the error was detected by the department in 2016, no recovery action was taken until 2023, by which time the applicant had retired. The applicant contended that there was no misrepresentation or fraud involved.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal observed that while the case did not strictly fall under specific clauses of the Rafiq Masih judgment, the unexplained delay of 7 years in taking recovery action between 2016 and 2023, coupled with the applicant's retirement, rendered the proposed recovery arbitrary and inequitable under the catch-all provision of para 18(v) of the cited authority.

Issues: Whether the recovery of excess pay, attributed to departmental error and initiated after a considerable lapse of time, is sustainable against a retired employee who was not responsible for the miscalculation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an employer detects an erroneous payment but fails to take timely action for seven years without justification, and the employee is free from any fault, the recovery becomes iniquitous and harsh, outweighing the employer's right to recover, justifying relief under the equitable principles established in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih.

Result: Original Application allowed. Impugned recovery order set aside; recovery ordered to be returned; liberty granted to proceed against responsible officials.

O R D E R

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

This Original Application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

“1. Quash the Prasar Bharati Directorate General, All India Radio- Akashavani Bhavan, New Delhi(S-VI Section) office Memorandum vide letter No.2/3/2022-SVI dated: 25-5-2022 Annexure-A7. Issued by respondent No.2.

2. Quash the Prasar Bharati, Doordarshan, Kendra Bangalore Memo No.BNG/DDK/ 68(11)/2023-24/AC dated: 31-7-2023 Annexure A9 issued by respondent No.3.

3. Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

The reliefs are claimed based on the following grounds:

“a. The applicant submits that the initial pay fixation of applicant in stenographer II, prior to 22-1-2004, was erroneously fixed, as stated by respondents from 1-1-2006. The applicant had no role in fixation of pay vide order dated: 10-1-2013, and24-1-2013.

b. The respondents issued clarification only on 31-12-2015, regarding rectification for fixating pay scales as on 1-1-2006, in respect of Head Clerks/Assts/Stenographer II.

C. The applicant submits that the respondents failed to rectify the error for 7 years from 2008 to 2015.

d. The respondents re-fixed the applicants pay from 1-1-2006, vide letter date: 23-2-2016, after, a period of 10 years, and recovery order is issued after a period of 7 years.

e. The applicants submit that applicant played no role in fixation of pay and nor applicant misrepresented the facts to the respondents.

f. The applicant submits that Hon'ble Apex Court, Hon'ble CAT(s) and High Courts set aside the recovery orders, relied on Hon'ble Apex Court order in Rafiz Masih case.

g. The applicant submits that the para 18(i)& (iii) in Rafiq Masih cases, the principles evolved is squarely applicable in the instant case.

h. Therefore the applicant submits that, the OM of Prasar Bharati dated: 25-5-2022 is in contravention of settle principle of law, on the question of recovery, therefore unsustainable in law.

i. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated: 2-5-2022 in Thomas Daniel -Vs- State of Kerala in Civil Appeal No.7115/2010 also set aside of order of recovery relying on earlier various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court.

j. Therefore the order of recovery dated: 31-7-2023, is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of Hon'ble Apex Court orders HC orders, and Hon'ble various tribunals orders and hence unsustainable in law. Hence the O.A.

The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the synopsis, are that:

The applicant was working as Stenographer II and promoted as stenographer I from 22-1-2004, and granted MACP II from 7-12-2008. The pay scale of Rs.5,500-175-9000, was bunched and placed in pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 with grade pay of Rs.4200 and re-fixed from 1-1-2006 and further re-fixed with grade pay of Rs.4600 after promotion to stenographer I. The Prasar Bharathi Secretary vide order dated: 31-12-2015, issued clarification regarding fixation of pay in respect Head clerks/Asst/Stenographer II. In accordance with above clarification, the applicant's pay was re-fixed from 1-1-2006, vide order dated: 23-2-2016. In accordance with due & drawn statements, the respondents alleged that a sum of Rs.5,00,800/- paid in excess and directed to credit on 25-11-2021, 14-6-2022, 31-7-2023. The applicant submitted a representation against the recovery on 10-12-2021. The respondents failed to reply individually, but a common OM dated: 25-5-2022 was issued for recovery. The applicant submits that the above order for recovery after a period of 10 years is against the principles laid down in para 18(ii) of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih case and other Hon'ble Apex Court Judgments and the orders of various Hon'ble Tribunals on the subject of recovery from employees. Therefore, the applicant submits that the order for recovery of Rs.5,00,800/-from the applicant is arbitrary, and unsustainable under law. Hence, the O.A.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4511

Recovery of excess salary payments from a non-erring employee is impermissible if initiated after a significant and unexplained administrative delay, as it renders the recovery action inequitable, harsh, and arbitrary, particularly when the employee has retired from service.

Cases Referred (2)