Union of India v. Vijay Kumar Saini

1. The respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Central Public Works Department[1] on 30 September 1983. He was promoted on ad hoc basis w.e.f[2] 13 August 2009. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 28 November 2019 which stated that he had not passed the Departmental Accounts Exam[3] and had erroneously been given the increments from 1 July 2011 to 1 July 2019 amounting to Rs.9,68,737 in violation of OM[4] dated 5 January 2006 by CPWD Directorate. The OM stated that the second and “CPWD” hereinafter with effect from DAE hereinafter 4 Office Memorandum subsequent increments are to be released only after passing the DAEs. The respondent was asked to reply as to why the excess payment be not recovered, within five days. Subsequent to the reply submitted by the respondent, the Chief Engineer, CSQ (Civil) issued Office Order dated 12 March 2020, stating that the respondent had erroneously been granted an increment with effect from 1 July 2011 to 1 July 2019. As a result, the office order directed recovery from the respondent of the alleged over paid amount.

2. The respondent, as already noted, was due for superannuation on 31 August 2020, a mere five months after the passing of the aforesaid Office Order on 12 March 2020.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent moved the Central Administrative Tribunal[5] by way of OA 1419/2020. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 13 January 2023, has set aside the aforesaid order dated 12 March 2020.

4. Mr. Bhardwaj restricts the relief prayed by him before the Tribunal to the aspect of recovery.

5. On the aspect of recovery, the issue is squarely covered by para 18 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Rafiq Masih[6], which reads thus: “the Tribunal” hereinafter