AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)
Shri M. K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
The applicant has filed this Original Application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, for seeking following relief(s):-
I. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 08.05.2025 (received on 28.05.2025) and to quash the impugned letter dated 11.07.2025 of recovery of excess payment for the period of 01.01.2016 to 30.04.2025.
II. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the promotional pay grade pay Rs. 4200 with all other consequential benefits and to pay the retiral dues, pension of the applicant with grade pay Rs. 4200 as per RBE No.93/2016.
III. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the difference of pay, difference of retiral dues and difference of pension along with interest @ 9% p.a. from due date to till payment date.
IV. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to refund and recovered amounts along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of recovery to till such actual payment date.
V. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
VI. Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was initially appointed as Motor Driver-II in Grade Pay Rs. 2400 and his lien was maintained in the parent cadre. Subsequently, in 2011, he passed the examination and trade test for the ex-cadre post of Tower Wagon Driver under the notification dated 14.06.2010, which specifically provided that the lien and seniority of the employees shall be maintained in the parent cadre and that they would be entitled to running allowance at par with Loco Pilots. Thereafter, the applicant was granted regular promotion in his parent cadre to the post of Motor Driver-I in Grade Pay Rs. 2800 vide order dated 30.07.2015 and subsequently promoted to Motor Driver-I/MCM in Grade Pay Rs. 4200 (Level-6) vide order dated 24.10.2019, with due approval of the competent authority, while continuing to work in the ex-cadre post. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that suddenly vide show cause notice dated 08.05.2025, the respondents alleged that the grant of pay in Level-6 (GP Rs. 4200) from 2019 to 2025 was erroneous and proposed to revert the applicant to Level-5 (GP Rs. 2800) with corresponding reduction in basic pay from Rs. 50,500 to Rs. 42,800. Subsequently, vide another show cause notice dated 11.07.2025, the respondents imposed recovery of Rs. 11,44,933 towards alleged excess payment for the period 2019 to 2025. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that excess payment said to have been made was not due to the misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the applicant but on account of wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance. Accordingly, he is submitted that his case is covered by judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, 2015 4 SCC 334. He further argued that the applicant has moved a representation dated 18.07.2025, which is not on record. Learned counsel for the applicant further prayed to stay the recovery order as the applicant will face the irreparable financial loss.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have right to refix the salary of applicant if any error is found in fixation of salary in light of the judgment of Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2009) 3 SCC 475, passed by Hon’ble Apex Court. He further argued that impugned order has been passed in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, O.A is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the grievance of the applicant. Applicant is also hereby directed to move afresh representation along with copy of this O.A. as well as a certified copy of this order within 15 days. After receipt of representation, respondents are further directed to decide the representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation and till such time effect and operation of order/notice dated 08.05.2025 as well as 11.07.2025 (recovery notice) shall remain stayed. The order so passed shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith. All associated M.A’s, if any, stand dispose of.
No costs.