RANJAN PRASAD vs POSTS on 15 October 2026

O R D E R

[Per: Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A)]

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief: “8.1 The respondent authorities may be directed to fix his pension on basis of last pay drawn in service grade pay 2400. 8.2 The respondent authorities may be directed to refund the recovered amount from his retiral benefits with admissible interest. 8.3 Any other relief/ reliefs as the applicant is entitled and Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice.”

2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking correction of his pension on the basis of the last pay drawn with Grade Pay of ₹2,400, refund of the amount recovered from his retiral benefits, together with admissible interest, and other consequential reliefs. 2.1 The applicant asserts that he was appointed as Tea Maker- cum-Wash Boy in Bhojpur Postal Division with effect from 16.02.1973. He claims that his pay was fixed with Grade Pay of ₹1,800 pursuant to the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission and that he was entitled to the second Assured Career Progression (ACP) on completion of 24 years of service.

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

Patna Bench 2.2 He further claims that, after completion of 30 years of service, he was granted the third Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) with Grade Pay of ₹2,400 with effect from 21.07.2010. 2.3 The applicant retired from service on 31.10.2019. His pension was initially fixed provisionally. Subsequently, following scrutiny of his service and pay records, the respondents revised his pay fixation and issued the revised Pension Payment Order in April 2021, taking his last pay as ₹36,100 in Pay Level 3 instead of ₹37,200, as claimed by him. 2.4 The applicant alleges that the respondents also recovered an amount from his retiral benefits on account of the earlier pay fixation and that such recovery was impermissible in law.

3. Per contra, the respondents contend that, for the purpose of reckoning qualifying service for financial upgradation in the case of canteen employees, the applicable Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated 01.09.2010 prescribes the relevant starting point as 26.09.1983 or the actual date of appointment on a regular basis, whichever is later. According to them, the applicant's claim to the second ACP could not be reckoned from the date asserted by him. They further submit that the applicant's third MACP was reflected in the service records with effect from 01.09.2008 and that his earlier pay fixation

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

Patna Bench was erroneous. Consequently, his pension was revised on the basis of the corrected last pay drawn. The respondents maintain that the correction was undertaken after scrutiny of the service records and that the excess amount paid on account of the erroneous fixation was recoverable. They also dispute receipt of the applicant's representation dated 21.05.2020.

4. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder controverting the material assertions made in the written statement.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the pleadings and the documents placed on record. I have considered the matter in its entirety and arrived at the following conclusion: 5.1 The principal questions arising for consideration are whether the applicant has established his entitlement to pension on the basis of Grade Pay of ₹2,400 and whether recovery of the alleged excess payment made on account of an erroneous pay fixation is legally sustainable. 5.2 At the outset, it is necessary to distinguish between correction of an erroneous pay fixation and recovery of amounts already paid pursuant to such fixation. These are legally distinct matters and must be examined independently. The fact that an employee may not have been entitled to a particular pay benefit does not, by itself, conclude whether amounts paid in the past

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

Patna Bench pursuant to the erroneous fixation can lawfully be recovered from him. 5.3 As regards the applicant's claim to Grade Pay of ₹2,400, the burden lies upon him to establish the specific financial upgradation or pay-fixation order conferring that entitlement and the applicable rules under which the benefit became admissible. A claim based merely on the asserted completion of a particular period of service cannot, by itself, establish entitlement to a financial upgradation without examination of the applicable qualifying-service provisions and the relevant service records. 5.4 The respondents have specifically relied upon the Office Memorandum dated 01.09.2010 and the service records to contend that the applicant's earlier pay fixation was erroneous. The respondents are well within their right to examine the whole service records prior to the time of superannuation of an employee for correct pay/pension fixation. The applicant has not filed a rejoinder to controvert these assertions. Nor do the materials described in the pleadings establish that the applicant was legally entitled to Grade Pay of ₹2,400 on the date immediately preceding retirement. 5.5 In these circumstances, the applicant has not established a sufficient basis for directing restoration of the claimed Grade Pay of ₹2,400 merely because that amount was reflected in an earlier pay fixation. An erroneous fixation does not create an indefeasible

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

Patna Bench right to continue receiving a benefit contrary to the governing rules. Accordingly, the respondents' correction of the applicant's pay fixation and consequential revision of pension cannot be set aside solely on the ground that the earlier fixation was more favourable to him. 5.6 However, the conclusion that the respondents could correct the pay fixation does not automatically validate the recovery of amounts already paid. The legality of such recovery must be tested independently against the principles governing recovery of excess payments from government employees. 5.7 It is now well settled that recovery is not permissible in the following situations in view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih that was formalized by the DoPT, Government of India by issuing O.M. No. 18/03/2015 Estt. (Pay-I) dated 02.03.2016:- “(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully has been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.”

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

Patna Bench 5.8 In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is nothing wrong in the respondents carrying out correction of wrong fixation of pay. However, they are prohibited from making any recovery of past excess payment made on account of such wrong fixation in view of the aforesaid provisions. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, the Hon’ble Supreme Court identified categories of cases in which recovery of excess payments from employees would be impermissible because of the inequitable and harsh consequences involved. The judgment also recognises that the permissibility of recovery must be assessed in the light of the circumstances identified therein. The principles laid down in Rafiq Masih are relevant to the present case. The applicant retired on 31.10.2019, whereas the respondents' own case is that the recovery arose from the subsequent correction of his pay fixation. The applicant was, therefore, already a retired employee when the recovery was effected. Further, he served as an MTS (Tea Maker), and the respondents have not established that the recovery falls outside the protection recognised in the aforesaid judgment. No material has been placed before us to establish that the excess payment was obtained by the applicant through fraud, misrepresentation or any deliberate concealment of material facts.

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

Patna Bench The respondents' case, as pleaded, is that the earlier fixation was erroneous and that the error was attributable to the pay-fixation process undertaken by the departmental authorities. In the absence of material establishing culpable conduct on the part of the applicant, the recovery cannot be sustained merely on the ground that the department has subsequently discovered an error in its earlier calculation. The same distinction between correction of an erroneous payment and recovery of amounts already disbursed is consistent with the principles reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, (2022) 5 SCC 545. The authority's power to correct an error does not dispense with the requirement that recovery must independently satisfy the applicable legal standards. 5.9 Consequently, while the respondents were entitled to examine the applicant's service records and determine the pay and pension lawfully admissible to him, the recovery of past excess payments from his retiral benefits is not sustainable in the circumstances of this case. The amount so recovered is liable to be refunded. Such refund shall not, however, be construed as recognition of the applicant's claim to Grade Pay of ₹2,400 or as a direction to restore the earlier erroneous pay fixation. 5.10 The applicant has also sought interest on the recovered amount. Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the relief

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

Patna Bench granted, I do not consider it appropriate to award interest in the absence of a sufficient basis on the material placed before us.

6. In view of the above observation, the Original Application is partly allowed in the following terms:

(a) The respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount which was made from his retiral benefits on account of wrong fixation of pay within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

(b) So far as the pay fixation is concerned, as observed above, the respondents are well within their right to correct this wrong as they have duly informed the applicant before going ahead with such correction. Hence, there is no violation of principle of natural justice. The revised pay fixation of the applicant is justified and requires no interference by the Tribunal.

(c) No order as to interest and costs.

Sd/- (Kumar Rajesh Chandra)

Administrative Member

Srk

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI