Union of India v. Jai Bhagwan

1. The respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Central Public Works Department[1] on 7 February 1981. On completion of 15 years of service, he was granted financial upgradation to the scale of ₹ 2000-2300-EB-3500. Accordingly, his salary was revised to ₹ 2375/- with effect from 16 March 1996. Under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, he was granted second financial upgradation to the grade of ₹ 10000-15200 with effect from 4 August 2006. Consequent to the acceptance of the recommendations “CPWD”, hereinafter of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the revised pay of the respondent was fixed at ₹ 15600-39100 with grade pay of ₹ 6600/-. The respondent was thereafter granted third financial upgradation to the grade pay of ₹ 7600/- under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme from 2011. The respondent superannuated on 30 June 2019.

2. By Office Order dated 15 May 2019 issued by the Chief Engineer, CSQ(Civil), it was observed that the respondent had erroneously been granted an increment with effect from 1 July 2008, as a result of which the financial benefit which was given to him with effect from 4 September 2018 was also inadmissible. As a result, the Office Order directed recovery, from the respondent, of the alleged over paid amount.

3. The respondent, as already noted, was due for superannuation one month and a half after the passing of the aforesaid Office Order on 30 June 2019.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the petitioner, the respondent moved the Central Administrative Tribunal[2] by way of OA 2534/2019. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 25 October 2019, has set aside the aforesaid order dated 15 May 2019.

5. Mr. Bhardwaj restricts the relief prayed by him before the Tribunal to the aspect of recovery. “the Tribunal”, hereinafter

6. 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[3], which reads thus: