ORAL ORDER

The applicant has filed this OA under Section19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to quash and set aside the Memorandum dated 22.01.2024 and to direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.5,05,782/- recovered from the applicant and refrain the respondents from effecting further recovery from the applicant’s pension.

It is the case of the applicant that he is a Group ‘C’ employee. He was selected as Senior Instructor in Pay Band 2 GP of Rs.4200 and posted at MilAalnp hJaancskosonDD33468RLDF 90fbboo iNea0gf7acxat7:eaia1cbt stdaC: 9tdfo Pi96lo2=25cny1Dn0,6I44: N9 s:2FP9d,I c i,6f 4Cgoa 8eR O.0nsmN141et3e=00a= a2dPt.elMhd1C4 ed1bee75ior7ly r as7da1 f8 o VnM6eu5bn5 8e=t:dJih2 lae5r4aa9so9l700n,c4ir :bock1 T 1cJo6cns247=af59:o0 6+1 ct622n3h306kc0 ,i852sAs 732S0' o5 3la4dp6n,=08d .oh9 OM'6fAca911I 0ualn6eDpemhs14h.1ao208aeer80nn5, 32stsP4bohh81t6ro78a5n69,=e 8aS=a4Ed0Ra5Ie7A58LbN8dU230MfdB87Ef05Rd7=1c83bd ETC VR. His pay was fixed on substantive basis at Rs.94,100 Level-8 (MACP) with 30% running allowance vide order dated 16.02.2018. He was regularly drawing this pay. However, all of a sudden, the respondents have issued show notice dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure A- 2) to the applicant stating that there was overpayment and why the same should not be recovered from him as per IREC 1305 (FR 9)(23) regarding personal pay. The applicant replied to the above show cause notice vide letter dated 12.01.2024(Annexure A-3) stating that he does not agree with the fixation of his basic pay as shown in the show cause notice dated 08.01.2024 stating that his case is of 8 years tenure post and his earlier pay fixation was correct as he joined Senior Instructor /ETC/VR on 28.01.2016 and his pay was fixed vide memo dated 16.02.2018. Therefore, he requested that the fixation method used for the fixation of pay earlier vide letter dated 16.02.2018 was correct and may be continued. However, inspite of his reply, the respondents have passed the order vide Memorandum dated 22.01.2024 (Annexure A-1) and directed that excess paid beyond 30% running allowance has been withdrawn and MilAalnp hJaancskosonDD33468RLDF 90fbboo iNea0gf7acxat7:eaia1cbt stdaC: 9tdfo Pi96lo2=25cny1Dn0,6I44: N9 s:2FP9d,I c i,6f 4Cgoa 8eR O.0nsmN141et3e=00a= a2dPt.elMhd1C4 ed1bee75ior7ly r as7da1 f8 o VnM6eu5bn5 8e=t:dJih2 lae5r4aa9so9l700n,c4ir :bock1 T 1cJo6cns247=af59:o0 6+1 ct622n3h306kc0 ,i852sAs 732S0' o5 3la4dp6n,=08d .oh9 OM'6fAca911I 0ualn6eDpemhs14h.1ao208aeer80nn5, 32stsP4bohh81t6ro78a5n69,=e 8aS=a4Ed0Ra5Ie7A58LbN8dU230MfdB87Ef05Rd7=1c83bd recovery of Rs.63,223 was deducted from his salary from the month of April, 2024 to the month of November, 2024 aggregating to Rs.5,05,782/-.

The applicant has placed reliance on the DoPT OM dated 02.03.2016 which was issued pursuant to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334. He has further placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)(supra) and subsequent judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala and others , (2022) 4 SCR 606.

After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA.

It has been submitted that the applicant while working as Motorman in Running Category was posted as Instructor in EMU Carshed VR, Electrical Traction Dept on deputation which is not a cadre post of Running Dept. Hence, on joining as Instructor, he was entitled for only 30% running allowance in additional to his substantive pay. His substantive pay before joining MilAalnp hJaancskosonDD33468RLDF 90fbboo iNea0gf7acxat7:eaia1cbt stdaC: 9tdfo Pi96lo2=25cny1Dn0,6I44: N9 s:2FP9d,I c i,6f 4Cgoa 8eR O.0nsmN141et3e=00a= a2dPt.elMhd1C4 ed1bee75ior7ly r as7da1 f8 o VnM6eu5bn5 8e=t:dJih2 lae5r4aa9so9l700n,c4ir :bock1 T 1cJo6cns247=af59:o0 6+1 ct622n3h306kc0 ,i852sAs 732S0' o5 3la4dp6n,