Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5045

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R. N. Singh, Member (J), Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Chandan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Yogesh Sharma
For the Respondents: Prashant Shukla, S.N. Verma

Pension fixed on higher pay scale granted by competent authority and continued for decades cannot be reduced retrospectively after retirement due to delay, absence of notice, and violation of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Pension Rules - Pay fixation - Higher pay scale granted in 2002 to retired officers pursuant to delegation of powers under MoU and ratified by governing council - Continued for two decades post-retirement - Re-fixation and reduction of pension after 20 years on audit objection and government advice held illegal - Pension once fixed cannot be revised downwardly except for clerical error; long delay bars recovery from retirees - Principles of natural justice violated due to lack of show cause notice - Retrospective reduction impermissible even with undertakings. (Paras 4, 8-12, 14-18)

(B) Service Law - Autonomous society - Competent authority's decision to upgrade pay scale, ratified by governing body, binding - Subsequent audit objections and external advice cannot override after long lapse and retirement - Recovery from pensioners unsustainable post-superannuation. (Paras 9-12, 18)

Facts of the case:
Retired officers granted higher pay scale in 2002 under delegated powers, continued drawing same for nearly two decades including post-retirement pension fixation. After audit objections, respondents issued orders in 2022 withdrawing scale, reducing pension, and enabling recovery, prompting challenge.

Findings of Court:
Impugned orders quashed; consequential benefits to be granted within eight weeks; interim order made absolute; no costs.

Issues: Whether pension fixed on upgraded pay scale can be reduced retrospectively after two decades; validity of recovery without notice post-retirement.

Ratio Decidendi: Once pension authorized, cannot be revised to disadvantage absent clerical error; delay of 20 years renders action arbitrary, violative of natural justice; competent grant and ratification prevail over delayed audit advice.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. applicants are retired npti directors (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. undisputed facts of pay scale revision and impugned orders (Para 4)
3. applicants argue delay, natural justice violation (Para 5)
4. respondents justify recovery due to erroneous grant (Para 6)
5. npti autonomous; dg granted higher pay scales validly (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
6. impugned orders based on mop advice post-audit (Para 12 , 13)
7. precedents bar retrospective pension reduction post-retirement (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
8. impugned orders quashed; consequential benefits granted (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J): -

By way of the present O.A., filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants, in paragraph 8 of the OA, have prayed for the following reliefs: -

“(i) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 17.10.2012 (Annex. A/1) and consequential orders dated 10.11.2022 (Annex. A/2) declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents deciding to reduce the pension of the applicants after their retirement is totally illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents not to re-fix/reduce the pay/pension of the applicants with all consequential benefits.

(ii) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order restraining the respondents to recover any alleged overpayment amount from the applicants.

(iii) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the cost of litigation.”

2. Pursuant to notice, respondent no. 2 has filed counter affidavit opposing the claim of the applicants.

3. The applicants have filed rejoinder and have reiterated their claim and the grounds in support thereof. Remaining respondent(s) have chosen not to file any reply.

4. Brief undisputed facts of the case are that the applicants are retired officers of the National Power Training Institute (NPTI), who superannuated from the post of Director/Principal Director. The pay scale attached to the said post was revised pursuant to the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission and granted in the year 2002 after approval by the competent authority. The said pay scale continued for a considerable period and formed the basis of pay as well as pension of the applicants at the time of their retirement. After a lapse of nearly two decades, and in several cases long after retirement, the respondents issued the impugned orders dated 17.10.2022 (Annexure A-1) and 10.11.2022 (Annexure A-2) withdrawing the higher pay scale and reducing the pension. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants have approached this Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the pay scale was granted by the competent authority and continued for years; reopening of pay fixation after such an inordinate delay is impermissible and recovery from retired employees is barred in law. Further, the impugned orders have been passed without issuing any show cause notice and without affording opportunity of hearing and therefore, the same are violative of principles of natural justice and hence not tenable in law.

5.1. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicants places reliance on the following orders/judgments:

(i) judgment dated 08.08.2008 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India vs M.L. Mehta, WP(C) No. 9903/2006

(ii) judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Grace George Pampoorickal vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and others, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1037

(iii) judgment dated 08.08.2024 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh vs State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 1635/2013

(iv) order/judgment dated 27.01.2025 of this Tribunal in the case

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5045

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALR. N. Singh, Member (J), Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)Chandan Singh – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentO.A.

Pension fixed on higher pay scale granted by competent authority and continued for decades cannot be reduced retrospectively after retirement due to delay, absence of notice, and violation of natural justice.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R. N. Singh, Member (J), Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Chandan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A.