ANURADHA BHATI vs M/o Environment And Forests on 8 October 2026

ORDER

Per : Hon’ble Mr Justice Rameshwar Vyas

The applicant, being aggrieved by the fixation of her pay and consequent recovery of Rs 1,60,063/-, has preferred this OA to quash and set aside the recovery order dated 21.01.2014 (Annex. A/1) and to direct the respondents to declare her entitled to Grade Pay of Rs 4600/- in PB-2 [Rs 9300-34800].

2. Facts of the case in brief are as under : 2.1 The applicant was appointed as Assistant Librarian Grade II on 14.09.1990 in Arid Forest Research Institute (AFRI). Vide order dated 29.09.2004 (Annex. A/3). She was promoted to the post of Asst. Librarian Grade I in the pay scale of Rs 6500-10500 from the date of assumption of charge on the post. On implementation of recommendations of 6th CPC, the post of Asst. Librarian Grade I in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs 6500-10500 was replaced by Grade Pay of Rs 4600/- in PB-2 [Pay Band-2 Rs 9300-34800]. 2.2 Vide order dated 20.10.2009 (Annex. A/4) issued by the Secretary, Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education (ICFRE), the Grade Pay for the post of Librarian was reduced from Rs 4600/- to Rs 4200/-. However, vide subsequent order dated 11.12.2009 (Annex.R/2), the Secretary, ICFRE withdrew/cancelled the aforesaid order dated 20.10.2009 in compliance of the OM dated 13.11.2009 (Annex. A/15) of Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India and directed that the Pay Band and Grade Pay in respect of all categories of posts will continue in force

Location:

SUDESH SHAKHI

as indicated in this office Notification No. 58-21/XXXIX/2008- ICFRE dated 15.10.2008.

3. Thus, it is an admitted position that the order dated 20.10.2009 (Annex. A/4) whereby order with regard to revision of the Grade Pay from Rs 4600/- to Rs 4200/- in PB-2 of Librarian corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs 6500-10500 was not given effect to. This fact is also evident from the due and drawn statement (Annex. A/12), wherein both the columns, i.e. pay due and pay drawn, Grade Pay of Rs 4600/- has been mentioned. Therefore, the grievance raised by the applicant with regard to reduction of his Grade Pay from Rs 4600/- to Rs 4200/, and the prayer for declaring her entitled to the Grade Pay of Rs 4600/- in PB-2 on account of revision of pay pursuant to implementation of recommendations of 6th CPC are misconceived.

4. It would be pertinent to note that vide communication dated 08.08.2013 Annexure R-7, placing the incumbent in the pay corresponding to pay of Rs 7450-10500 with Grade Pay of Rs 4600/- with the pre-revised basic pay of Rs 6700/- was held contrary to the provisions of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, therefore, directions were issued vide letter dated 13th August 2013 to make necessary rectification in the pay fixed as per above method. Consequent upon the above direction, the pay of the applicant was revised to Rs 12,470/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and excess payment of Rs 1,60,063/- was worked out to be recovered in 24 instalments vide letter dated 21.01.2014 (Annex. A/1).

5. The applicant has assailed the above recovery with a prayer to quash and set aside the above communication dated

Location:

SUDESH SHAKHI

21.01.2014 along with order dated 03.03.2010 (Annex. A/2). Since the operation of the aforesaid recovery letter dated 21.01.2014 was stayed by this Tribunal by interim order dated 11.04.2014, recovery was not made from the applicant during her service tenure.

6. As per supplementary reply to the OA filed by the respondents on 31.03.2026, consequent upon revision of pay scales of Library Staff vide Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Expenditure, Govt. of India OM No. 19(1)/IC/86 dated 24.07.1990 & OM No. 71/3/2001-IC dated 21.02.2002, the pay of the applicant has been revised with effect from her joining in AFRI, i.e. 14.09.1990 vide order dated 01.04.2019 (Annex. R/12) to Rs 13950/- with Grade Pay of Rs 4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Based upon the aforesaid revision of pay, whereby, the applicant has already been granted pay of Rs 13,950/- with Grade Pay of Rs 4600/- resulting in nullifying the earlier recovery of Rs 1,60,063/-, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the instant OA has been rendered infructuous.

7. In response to the above contention, learned counsel for the applicant, while referring to the order dated 13.11.2019 (Annex. A/22) annexed with the additional affidavit, submitted that the recovery sought from the applicant was contrary to the salary admissible to the applicant, as such, the amount worked out for recovery was in gross disregard of her entitlement, compelling the applicant to approach for legal remedy before this Tribunal. Admittedly, during the period from 2014 to 2019, the stand taken by the department was not in consonance with her entitlement of

Location:

SUDESH SHAKHI

salary as per correct fixation, which deprived the applicant of her entitlements till the passing of the order dated 13.11.2019. As such, the respondents cannot escape the liability of interest for their erroneous denial of the entitled salary of the applicant.

8. Having regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, it emerges that after issuance of order dated 01.04.2019 whereby the pay of the applicant was revised to Rs 13,950/-, the grievance of the applicant against revision of her pay in the pay band-2 from Rs 13850/- to 12470/- and consequent recovery no longer survives. Therefore, with the further development in the case, the grievance against recovery initiated vide letter dated 21.01.2014 (Annex. A/1) does not survive. It is also pertinent to note that pursuant to the aforesaid recovery order, the same was not executed till paying her arrears worked out on account of revision of her pay from the date of initial appointment. Therefore, no question arises to award the applicant any interest on the assessed recovery of Rs 1,60,063/- which was never recovered from her. Upon perusal of the letter dated 13.11.2019, it appears that the applicant has been inadvertently paid Rs 1,60,063/- in addition to arrears of pay pursuant to revision of her pay vide order dated 01.04.2019. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that respondents have taken an erroneous stand during the period from 2014 to 2019, therefore, they cannot escape the liability of interest for erroneous denial of entitled salary to her is concerned, we make it clear that the order of fixation of pay dated 08.08.2013 (Annex. R/6), based upon which the recovery was worked out, has neither been challenged nor have we examined its

Location:

SUDESH SHAKHI

correctness. Therefore, the same cannot be termed as erroneous. The impugned recovery has been nullified not by setting aside the aforesaid order dated 08.08.2016 but on account of further development, i.e. issuance of order dated 01.04.2019 whereby the pay of the applicant has been fixed from her initial date of appointment pursuant to letter dated 14.12.2018 of Secretary, ICFRE. Though the applicant was under obligation to disclose the above development taken place in the year 2019, but she unnecessarily dragged the litigation for seven years. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant to award interest to the applicant on account of so-called incorrect revision of her pay at Rs 12,470/- is meritless.

10. In view of the above, the instant OA has rendered infructuous; hence, disposed of with no order as to costs.

(Hukum Singh Meena) (Rameshwar Vyas) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

ss

Location:

SUDESH SHAKHI