Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Pramod Murlidhar Subhedar vs Defence on 17 December, 2025
1 OA.653/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
O.A.653/2022
Dated this Wednesday the 17th day of December, 2025.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Shri Krishna, Member (Administrative)
Hon'ble Mr.Umesh Gajankush, Member (Judicial).
Shri Pramod Murlidhar Subhedar,
Aged about 67 years, S/o Murlidhar Subhedar,
R/at Flat No.3, Amoli Apartment,
Opp. Karishma Society, Kothrud,
Pune - 411 038. .. Applicant.
( By Advocate Shri P.J. Prasadrao ).
Versus
1. Union of India, through
The Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi - 110 011.
2. The Controller General of Defence Accounts,
Ulan Batar Road, Palam,
Delhi Cantt. - 110 010
Milan Jackson
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone=
30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=
401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan
[email protected]
Jackson Alphanso
Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
3. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (SC),
No.01 Finance Road, Pune - 411 001.
[email protected]
2 OA.653/2022
4. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension),
Draupadi Ghat, Prayagraj, Allahabad - 211 014.
[email protected]
5. The General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Centralized Pension Processing Centre,
5th Floor, Premises No.T-651, ITC Belapur,
Navi Mumbai - 400 614.
[email protected] .. Respondents.
( By Advocate Smt.N.V. Masurkar ).
Order reserved on : 04.12.2025
Order pronounced on : 17.12.2025
ORDER
Per : Shri Krishna, Member (A)
The applicant has filed this O.A. to claim for the following reliefs:
"(a) To allow this original application.
(b) This Hon'ble Tribunal is pleased to quash and set aside PPO No.413201500185 Dated Nil (Annexure A1), Order No.G-1/CIV/XIII/CPGRAM/07/2022 Dated 08.07.2022 (Annexure A2) and Letter no.CPPC/GAD/2021-22/1754 Dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure A3).Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
(c) The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to issue direction to the respondent no.4 and 5 not to recover the arrears of Rs.11,600/- per month from pension of the applicant and 3 OA.653/2022 continue the pension granted in the PPO th No.41320151658201K dated 24 August 2015.
(d) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be please to stay the further recovery of Rs.11,600/- per month from the pension of the applicant pending reviving the pension granted on superannuation.
(e) Any further order/order(s) as deemed fit in the interest of justice.
(f) Cost of this application be granted."
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are that he was recruited on 27.03.1990 as Data Entry Operator 'A' (DEO) under Physically Handicapped quota with 50% disability in Orthopaedic Category.
2.1. He filed O.A.207/2002 for grant of higher pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 with effect from the date of joining in the Defence Accounts Department. The Tribunal vide its order dated 25.07.2002 has granted higher pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 to the applicant based on the order of Jabalpur Bench of Tribunal in O.A.142/1995 dated 28.09.1999 and also order of the Lucknow Bench in O.A.150/2001, wherein pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 was Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 granted to the post of Jr. Key Punch Operator on the ground that the applicant was similarly placed.4 OA.653/2022
2.2. It has been submitted that pursuant to the order of the Tribunal dated 25.07.2002, the applicant was granted pay scale of Rs.1350-2200/- with effect from the date of joining in the Defence Accounts Department. Thereafter, he was granted 1st financial upgradation in the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- and thereafter 2nd MACP on 27.03.2010 with Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- 2.3. It is the claim of the applicant that on his retirement on 30.11.2015, he was granted basic pay of Rs.18,590/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- based upon last pay drawn i.e. Rs.18,590 + GP of Rs.4600 total of which works out to Rs.23,190/-. Accordingly his pension was fixed at Rs.11,595/-. However, vide PPO No.413201500185 dated Nil, the respondents down graded basic pay of Rs.18590+GP 4600 to Rs.15510 + GP of Rs.4200/-
Hence, the pension of the applicant is reduced to Rs.9855/-
instead of Rs.11,595/-.
2.4. The applicant has stated that vide impugned order dated 08.07.2022 (Annex-A-2), the Respondent No.4 instructed the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Respondent No.3 the cause for reduction of basic pay as the relevant documents are not traceable. The Respondent No.4 further instructed the Respondent No.3 to supply LPC cum Data 5 OA.653/2022 Sheet duly verified and counter signed by the Head of Office with all supporting documents to issue corrected PPO. 2.5. It has been submitted that the benefits granted on the date of retirement cannot be reduced and consequently the recovery of pension proposed by the Respondent No.5 in the impugned order dated 08.02.2022 is not valid. It has been submitted that the recovering the arrears of pension is contrary to Rule 70 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the ratio laid down in case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 33, wherein it was held that recovery from the employees when the excess payment has been made for a period of five years, before the order of recovery is issued is not permissible in law and, therefore, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.
3. After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their reply. It has been submitted that the applicant was entitled for pay scale of Rs.1150-1500 with effect from his joining. His pay was re-fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 pursuant to CAT, Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Mumbai Bench order dated 25.07.2002. However, the case was sub-judice in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. During re-fixation of pay in higher pay scale, an undertaking from applicant dated 6 OA.653/2022 14.12.2006 was obtained to the effect that in the event of the petitions filed by the Department are decided in favour of the Department by the Hon'ble Courts in similar cases, to refund the benefits allowed to him now from his pay and allowances including his retirement benefits.
3.1. It has been submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Judgment dated 09.12.2014 in Civil Appeal No.10862/2014 arising out of SLP (C) No.26977/2010 has held that the Data Entry Operators Grade-A are not entitled for scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200 with effect from 01.01.1986 or thereafter and further held that any decision rendered by any Tribunal or any High Court contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is wrong. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically pronounced that all the impugned orders passed by the CAT Benches and the High Courts in favour of the respondents were illegal and are set aside.
3.2. It has been further submitted that pursuant to the Judgment Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant's pay was downgraded and re-fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1150-1500 vide order dated 01.09.2016 (Annex-R-3). Therefore, the 2nd MACP granted to 7 OA.653/2022 the applicant in Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- was revised and re-fixed in Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. The applicant was retired on superannuation on 30.11.2015. His LPC-cum-Datasheet based on downgraded basic pay was forwarded to the O/o PCDA (Pensions) Prayagraj vide letter dated 26/30.03.2021 (Annex-R-
4) for notifying corrigendum PPO. Accordingly, the recovery was also calculated through corrigendum PPO, based on the undertaking given by the applicant.
3.3. It has been submitted that his monthly pension was sanctioned at Rs.11,595/- with effect from 01.12.2015 based on his basic pay of Rs.18,590 + GP Rs.4600/-. However, pursuant to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment as discussed above, the respondents issued office letter dated 01.09.2016 (Annex-R-
3) to revise the basic pay and accordingly his Grade Pay was reduced from Rs.4600/- to Rs.4200/- and, therefore, his pension was revised from Rs.11,595/- to Rs.9,855/- and recovery of Rs.1,65,605/- was ordered to be recovered as per Corrigendum Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 PPO No.413201500185.
3.4. It has been further submitted that to avoid financial hardship to the affected Data Entry Operators, the Controller 8 OA.653/2022 General Defence Accounts, Headquarters Office vide letter dated 23.01.2020 (Annex-R-6) has informed that as the Ministry of Defence (Fin.) has conveyed its decision to set aside recovery arising out of such pay fixation vide its Dy.No.03/01/2020, therefore, the cut-off date for setting aside the recovery may be treated as upto 03.01.2020. Accordingly, the respondents have notified the Part-II Office Order No.95 dated 05.03.2021 (Annex-
R-8) on account of revision of pay scale of the applicant duly mentioning therein that the financial effect is from 04.01.2020.
3.5. It has been submitted that the case was reviewed in detail comprising of pension received by the applicant from the date of his retirement till date, and the pension paid by PDA Bank and by the SPARSH Portal and excess pension received by the individual was worked out Rs.4,60,089 as under:
Excess pension received by the individual w.e.f. 1.1.2015 to 03.01.2020 - Rs.1,86,320/- Excess pension received by the Individual w.e.f. 2/20 to Dec. 2021 - Rs.1,08,164/- Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Excess gratuity received by the Individual on 1.1.2015 - Rs. 97,168/-
Excess commutation value received by The individual on 1.1.2015 - Rs. 68,437/-
9 OA.653/2022
____________
Total - Rs.4,60,089/-
____________
3.6. It has been submitted that the recovery amounting to Rs.3,51,925/- being prior to 03.01.2020 has been set aside in terms of Hqrs. Letter dated 23.01.2020 and 19.06.2023 and as such recovery for Rs.1,08,164/- only is due from the applicant being excess pension received beyond cut of date i.e. 03.01.2020. It has been submitted that from the details of pension received from the Bank and SPARSH Portal that following recovery has already been effected from the individual:
Recovery effected by the Bank - Rs. 92,800/- Erroneous recovery made by the Bank - Rs. 3,811/- Recovery made by the Sparsh Portal - Rs. 22,600/- (@11330/- for the month of July & August, 2023).
Total recovery made - Rs.1,19,271/-
It may be seen that a recovery amounting to Rs.1,19,271/- has been effected from the individual by the PCDA (P), Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Prayagraj/PDA against an amount of Rs.1,08,164/-. PCDA (P) Prayagraj was accordingly requested to refund the excess recovery made (i.e. Rs.11,107/-) from the applicant's pension 10 OA.653/2022 and to issue fresh Corrigendum PPO if required. Thus, it has been submitted that refund of excess recovery of Rs.11,107/-
from the applicant's pension has been refunded to him by issuing fresh Corrigendum PPO.
3.7. It has been submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 70 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, pension once authorized after final assessment shall not be revised to the disadvantage of the Government servant, unless such revision becomes necessary on account of detection of a clerical error. In the instant case, the pension has been reduced/revised in compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 09.12.2014 in Civil Appeal No.10862/2014 arising out in SLP (C) No.26977/2010 and undertaking given by the applicant.
3.7.1. The arrears of pension are being recovered based on Corrigendum PPO issued on revised basic pay at the time of his retirement. The applicant has submitted undertaking dated 14.12.2006 (Exh.R-1) to the effect that "in the event of the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 petitions filed by the Department are decided in favour of the Department by the Hon'ble High Courts in similar cases, to 11 OA.653/2022 refund the benefits allowed to him now from his pay and allowances including his retirement benefits." 3.8. The respondents have further placed reliance on the judgment of Principal Bench of CAT in O.A.572/2018 dated 07.08.2019 in the case of Smt.Santosh Goyal & Others vs. Controller General of Defence Accounts & Others and judgment of Lucknow Bench of CAT in O.A.No.332/00203/2020 dated 21.02.2022 (Exh.R-16) and order of the CAT, Lucknow Bench in O.A.332/00204/2020 decided 07.03.2022 (Exh.R-17), wherein it was held that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicants were not entitled for pay of Rs.1350-2200/-.
In view of the above, it has been submitted that the O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the submissions made in the O.A. and placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. in Civil Appeal No.11527/2014.12 OA.653/2022
5. The respondents in turn have filed reply to the rejoinder reiterating and elaborating their submissions in the reply affidavit stating that the pay of the applicant has been correctly refixed. It has been further reiterated that an amount of Rs.4,60,089/- was excess payment made to the applicant, however, out of which an amount of Rs.3,51,925/- has already been waived by the respondents being prior to 03.01.2020 has been set aside in terms of Headquarters letter dated 23.02.2020 and 19.06.2023 and only excess payment of Rs.1,19,271/- which was paid after cut off date has been ordered to be recovered, out of which Rs.11,330/- has been directed to be refunded.
5.1. The Respondent No.5 has also filed reply stating that they worked on the instructions from the Pension Sanctioning Authority (PSA) i.e. Respondent No.4, Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) and they have not taken decision of their own.
6. During arguments, learned counsel for both the sides have Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 relied upon the arguments made in the O.A. and reply as well as rejoinder and reply to the rejoinder and no new points were made.13 OA.653/2022
6.1. Mr.P.J. Prasadrao, learned counsel for the applicant emphasised that since the applicant has received excess payment for more than 5 years, therefore, the same cannot be recovered as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra). However, Mrs.N.V. Masurkar, learned counsel for the respondents placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension & Anr. Vs. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao, in Civil Appeal No.10862/2014 arising out in SLP (C) No.26977/2010 decided on 09.12.2014 submitted that the pension was revised in compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 09.12.2014. She further submitted that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) is not applicable to the applicant's case as he had given undertaking that if excess payment made in the event of fixation, shall be refunded to the same.Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 6.2. She has further placed reliance on the judgments of Principal Bench of CAT in O.A.572/2018 dated 07.08.2019 in the case of Smt.Santosh Goyal & Others vs. Controller General 14 OA.653/2022 of Defence Accounts & Others and judgment of Lucknow Bench of CAT in O.A.No.332/00203/2020 dated 21.02.2022 (Exh.R-16) and order of the CAT, Lucknow Bench in O.A.332/00204/2020 decided 07.03.2022, to justify the action of the respondents.
7. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the documents and pleadings filed on record. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the issue at hand.
8. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed on 27.03.1990 in the pay scale of Rs.1150/- which was revised to pay scale of Rs.1350-2200/- in the year 2002 based on the order of this Tribunal. However, the order was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 09.12.2014 has held that the applicants are not entitled for the pay scale of Rs.1350-
2200/-. Pursuant to the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents have revised the pension of the applicant Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 by reducing his Grade Pay from Rs.4600/- to Rs.4200/- and calculated the excess payment to Rs.4,60,089/-. However, the amount of Rs.3,51,925/- was waived of by the respondents and 15 OA.653/2022 an amount of Rs.1,08,164/- was only ordered to be recovered which the payment made in excess beyond the cut off date of 03.01.2020.
9. It will be helpful to extract herein the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension & Anr. Vs. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao decided on 09.12.2014, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in relevant paras 23 to 32 has held as under:-
"23. We have considered the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.
24. Prior to 1986 there were in existence two grades of operators viz. Junior Key Punch Operators in the scale of Rs.260-400 and Senior Key Punch Operators in the scale of Rs.350-560. The pay scales of all these posts was revised to Rs.950-1500 and Rs.1200- 2040 respectively w.e.f. 1.1.1986 pursuant to recommendation made by the Fourth Pay Commission. These posts came to be re- designated as Data Entry Operator, Grade-A and Data Entry Operator, Grade-B in the scale of. Rs.1150-1500 and Rs.1350-2200 respectively pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989 whereby the Electronic Data Processing Posts have been reorganized.
25. With a view to consider different pay scale on the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, a Committee was constituted to suggest reorganization of the existing Electronic Data Processing Posts. On the recommendation, the Government of Page 17 18 India vide 16 OA.653/2022 Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989 made the following restructure for Electronic Data Processing Posts:
S.No. Designation of the post Data Entry Operator Pay Scale Qualification/Source Entry of 1 Data Operator Grade-A Entry 1150-1500 This will be entry grade for higher secondary with knowledge of Data Entry work. 2 Data Operator Grade-B Entry 1350-2200 This will be entry grade for graduates with knowledge of Data Entry work - Promotional grade for Data Entry Operator Grade-A. Subsequently, Rules under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India has been framed. From the aforesaid memorandum and Rules it is clear that qualification for Data Entry Operator Grade-A is higher secondary whereas the qualification for Data Entry Operator Grade-B is graduation and it is a promotional post from Data Entry Operator Grade-A persons who have six years of experience.
26. The classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the Executive and the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. There may be more grades than one in a particular service.
27. The Government on consideration of the report submitted by the Committee, issued Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989 Page 18 261 19 prescribing therein different pay scales and different grades of Data Entry Operators besides the mode and manner of recruitment to and qualifications for each entry grade post as well as eligibility and experience for promotional grades. The Court Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 or the Tribunal, in our opinion, would be exceeding its power of judicial review if it sits in appeal over the decision of the Executive in the matter of prescribing the pay structure unless it is shown to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.17 OA.653/2022
Difference in pay scales based on educational qualifications, nature of job, responsibility, accountability, qualification, experience and manner of recruitment does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
28. Before the CAT, Bombay Bench a chart dated 8.1.1999 was produced wherein certain additional duties were listed which were to be performed by Data Entry Operators Grade-B over and above the duties assigned/prescribed for Data Entry Operators Grade-A were listed. Considering the educational qualifications prescribed under the Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989 and the rules for appointment to the posts of Data Entry Operators, Grade-B and the order assigning duties, we are of the view that classification of Data Entry Operators in different grades, does not violate any right of equality guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution nor does it violate the constitutional protection against hostile or arbitrary discrimination. Therefore, no Page 19 exception can be taken to the difference in the pay structures of entry grade of Data Entry Operators and the next higher grades. CAT Benches in most of the impugned orders had failed to notice the background of rationalization of pay scales of Electronic Data Processing Posts. In these cases, both the Tribunals and the High Court failed to notice that before rationalization of the posts, i.e. prior to 1986 there were in existence two grade of operators, Junior Key Punch Operators in the scale of Rs.260-400 and Senior Key Punch Operators in the scale of Rs.350-
560. The pay scales of these posts were revised to 950- 1500 and Rs.1200-2040 respectively w.e.f. 1.1.1986. In view of reorganization of Electronic Data Processing posts the Key Punch Operators and other posts which had lower Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 pay scale of Rs.260-400 was revised to Rs.950-1500. Their posts were re-designated as Data Entry Operators Grade-A with benefit of other revision of the scale of Rs.1150-1500. In fact double benefit was granted to them w.e.f. 1.1.1986 i.e. one revision in the scale of Rs.950-1500 18 OA.653/2022 as they were entitled as per recommendation of Pay Revision Committee and the other revision w.e.f. same date i.e. 1.1.1986 in the scale of Rs.1150-1500 on the recommendation of the Committee set up by the Department of Electronics which was accepted by the Government of India vide Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989. It is only those Senior Key Punch Operators who were in the higher scale of Rs.350-560 having qualification of graduate and whose scale was revised to 1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Irrespective of that different Benches of the CAT Page 20 26 21 without discussing the nature of job, responsibility, accountability and status and rank of the one or other posts of different Data Entry Operators i.e. Grade-A or Grade-B held that they were performing similar duties and are hence entitled for equal pay and eligible for Rs.1350-2200 on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Both the Tribunal and the High Court also failed to notice that the Data Entry Operator Grade-B in the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 is a promotional grade and only those who have six years of experience are eligible for such promotion. The promotional grade and entry grade cannot have the same pay scale and in absence of declaration that rationalization of pay scale of Electronic Data Processing posts made by Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1979 is illegal, no such benefit could have been granted.
29. Both the Tribunal and the High Court also failed to notice the statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India issued by the order of the President of India vide notification dated 3xd April, 1992 and notification dated 10.10.1996 from Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions.Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Both the Tribunal and the High Court also erred in ignoring the law laid down by this Court in plethora of judgments that the "principle of equal pay for equal work"19 OA.653/2022
is not always applicable even if duties and functions are of similar nature.
In Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and others, (1989) 2 SCC 235 this Court has inter alia held as follows:-
"5. While considering the question of application of principle of "Equal pay for equal work"
it has to be borne in mind that it is open to the State to classify employees on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned. If the classification has reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, efficiency in the administration, the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scale but if the classification does not stand the test of reasonable nexus and the classification is founded on unreal, and unreasonable basis it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equality must be among the equals. Unequal cannot claim equality. 7. Even assuming that the petitioner performs similar duties and functions as those performed by an Audiologist, it is not sufficient to uphold his claim for equal pay. As already observed, in judging the equality of work for the purposes of equal pay, regard must be had not only to the duties and functions but also to the educational qualifications, qualitative difference and the measures of responsibility prescribed for the respective posts. Even if the duties and functions are of similar nature but if the educational qualifications prescribed for the two posts are different and there is difference in measure of responsibilities, the principle of "Equal pay for equal work" would not apply..... "
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson AlphansoMilan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
30. It was further re-affirmed in a three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Shyam Babu Verma & Others v.
Union of India Others, (1994) 2 SCC 521 wherein the Court held:
20 OA.653/20229.........The nature of work may be more or less the same but scale of pay may vary based on academic qualification or experience which justifies classification. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' should not be applied in a mechanical or casual manner. Classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of Page 22 259 23 the work should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate the classification made to be unreasonable. Inequality of the men in different groups excludes applicability of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to them. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has been examined in State of M.P. v. Pramod Bhartiyal by this Court. Before any direction is issued by the Court, the claimants have to establish that there was no reasonable basis to treat them separately in matters of payment of wages or salary. Then only it can be held that there has been a discrimination, within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution."
31. In fact the case of Shyam Babu Verma was similar to the present case. In the said case the Third Pay Commission placed Pharmacists Grade-B into two categories and prescribing two scale of pay - (1) For fully qualified pharmacist who possess the qualification mentioned under the Act and (ii) For unqualified Pharmacists, those covered by clause (d) of Section 31 of the Act. The said recommendation was given effect from 1.1.1973. In the said case it was urged on behalf of the petitioners that based on the principle of equal pay for equal work they were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.330- 550 which was the scale of pay to the other Pharmacists. Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 In the said case after making the above said observation this Court further held:
"10. In the facts of present case there is no scope for applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' 21 OA.653/2022 when the petitioners belong to a separate category of Pharmacists with reference to the qualifications prescribed under the Act. According to us, there is no element of arbitrariness in the decision of the respondents to implement two scales of pay for two categories of Pharmacists Grade-B. It does not violate any of the provisions of the Constitution calling for interference by this Court. Page 23 11. Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs 330-480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs 330-560 but as they have received the scale of Rs 330-560 since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from January 1, 1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to them. Accordingly, we direct that no steps should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners due to the fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no way responsible for the same."
32. In view of the findings recorded above we hold that Data Entry Operators Grade-A are not entitled for Scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 or thereafter merely on the basis of their qualifications or for the fact that they have completed their period of requisite service. We further hold that any decision rendered by any Tribunal or any High Court contrary to our decision is wrong. Further in view of the reasons and findings recorded above while we hold that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit as they sought for before the Tribunal or the High Court, all Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 the impugned orders passed by the CAT Benches and the High Courts in favour of the respondents being illegal are set aside."22 OA.653/2022
10. The respondents issued Circular dated 01.09.2016 (Exh.R-3) pursuant to the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, directing to initiate recovery of the overpayments made to the DEOs till 01.09.2016. It has been further stated that however, to avoid the financial hardship to the affected DEOs, overpayment so calculated may be recovered as per extant order of Government of India. Thereafter, the Respondent No.3 issued letter dated 26/30.03.2021 (Exh.R-4) stating that the revision of pay scale of the applicant has been refixed vide Part II O O No.95/7 dated 05.03.2021 and Corrigendum data sheet in which the Pay Band was revised from Rs.18,590/- to Rs.15,510/- and Grade Pay from Rs.4600/- to Rs.4200/-. As a result the family pension was revised from Rs.11,595/- to Rs.9,855/-.
11. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 issued letter dated 19.06.2023 (Exh.R-14) informing that all sorts of recoveries from DEOs arising out of correction of their pay including terminal benefits which includes gratuity and CVP amount paid prior to Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 03.01.2020 have been waived off by the Ministry of Defence (Fin.). It was requested to take corrective measures in the instant case and in other similar cases where overpayments made till 23 OA.653/2022 03.01.2020 may have been recovered inspite of directions circulated by this Hqrs ibid letter dated 23.01.2020. Action taken in this regard may please be intimated to this Hqrs. Thus, the respondents after considering the financial hardship they have waived off the amount of Rs.3,51,925/- on their own which pertains to the period prior to 03.01.2020 and ordered recovery of Rs.1,08,164/-.
12. We further find that a similar issue arose before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.572/2018 decided on 07.08.2019 after considering the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) and other judgments in Para 6, 7 and 8 has held as under:-
"6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings available on record, we are of the view that the recoveries initiated by the respondents after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10862 of 2014 and other connected Civil appeals (supra) dated 9.12.2014, is in order because the applicants themselves have clearly give their respective undertaking regarding refund of the amount being paid in the event the order of the Hon'ble High Court is reversed / overturned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has over turned the decision of the Hon'ble High Court as a consequence thereof the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 applicants are liable to refund the payments made to them on basis of undertaking furnished by them, as the said issue has attained finality. We therefore, do not find any merit in the claim of the applicants assailing the impugned orders of recovery.24 OA.653/2022
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again considered the issue of recovery in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh in Civil Appeal No.3500/2006 decided on 29.7.2016, in which held as follows:-
"9. The submission of the Respondent, which found favour with the High Court, was that a payment which has been made in excess cannot be recovered from an employee who has retired from the service of the state. This, in our view, will have no application to a situation such as the present where an undertaking was specifically furnished by the officer at the time when his pay was initially revised accepting that any payment found to have been made in excess would be liable to be adjusted. While opting for the benefit of the revised pay scale, the Respondent was clearly on notice of the fact that a future re-fixation or revision may warrant an adjustment of the excess payment, if any, made.
10. In State of Punjab & Ors. etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., (2015) 4 SCC 334, this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law:
"(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-
III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson AlphansoMilan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.25 OA.653/2022
(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 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 for outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
(emphasis supplied).
11. The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.
12. For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court which set aside the action for recovery is unsustainable. However, we are of the view that the recovery should be made in reasonable instalments. We direct that the recovery be made in equated monthly instalments spread over a period of two years.
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson AlphansoMilan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
13. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The Civil Appeal shall stand allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs."
26 OA.653/20228. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the instant OA is found bereft of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
13. Similar issue came up before the Lucknow Bench of CAT in O.A.No.332/00203/2020. The Lucknow Bench vide order dated 21.02.2022 has decided the issue against the applicants. It would be helpful to extract herein the relevant para of order of the Lucknow Bench from Para 10 to 11 herein as under:-
"10. Without further begging the point, as regards the merits of the plea for equality and resultant pay fixation, the relevant para-2, 26-28 of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement qua the fact of DEOs Grade 'A' and Grade 'B' dispute are reproduced below:
"..2. The respondents who were posted in different departments in the Ministries of Union of India as Data Entry Operator Grade 'A', move applications before the Central Administrative Tribunals for grant of pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 with effect from 1st January, 1986, The Tribunal allowed the applications. The judgment and orders passed by the Tribunal having affirmed by the High Court are under challenge in these appeals.
"...26. The classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the Executive and the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. There may Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 be more grades than one in a particular service.
27. The Government on consideration of the report submitted by the Committee, issued Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989 prescribing therein different pay scales and different grades of Data Entry 27 OA.653/2022 Operators besides the mode and manner of recruitment to and qualifications for each entry grade post as well as eligibility and experience for promotional grades. The Court or the Tribunal, in our opinion , would be exceeding its power of judicial review if it sits in appeal over the decision of the Executive in the matter of prescribing the pay structure unless it is shown to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Difference in pay scales based on educational qualifications, nature of job, responsibility, accountability, qualification, experience and manner of recruitment does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
28. Before the CAT, Bombay Bench a chart dated 8.1.1999 was produced wherein certain additional duties were listed which were to be performed by Data Entry Operators Grade-B over and above the duties assigned/prescribed for Data Entry Operators Grade-A were listed. Considering the educational qualifications prescribed under the Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989 and the rules for appointment to the posts of Data Entry Operators, Grade-B and the order assigning duties, we are of the view that classification of Data Entry Operators is different grades, does not violate any right of equality guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution nor does it violate the constitutional protection against hostile or arbitrary discrimination. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the difference in the pay structures of entry grade of Data Entry Operators and the next higher grades. CAT Benches in most of the impugned orders had failed to notice the background of rationalization of pay scales of Electronic Data Processing Posts. In these cases, both the Tribunals and the High Court failed to notice that before rationalization of the posts, i.e. prior to 1986 there were in existence two grade of operators, Junior Key Punch Operators in the scale of Rs.260-400 and Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= Senior Key Punch Operators in the scale of Rs.350-
560. The pay scales of these posts were revised to 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 950-1500 and Rs.1200-2040 respectively w.e.f. 1.1.1986. In view of reorganization of Electronic Data Processing posts the Key Punch Operators and other posts which had lower pay scale of Rs.260-400 was revised to Rs.950-1500. Their posts were re- designated as Data Entry Operators Grade-A with 28 OA.653/2022 benefit of other revision of the scale of Rs.1150-1500. In fact double benefit was granted to them w.e.f. 1.1.1986 i.e. one revision in the scale of Rs.950-1500 as they were entitled as per recommendation of Pay Revision Committee and the other revision w.e.f. same date i.e. 1.1.1986 in the scale of Rs.1150-1500 on the recommendation of the Committee set up by the Department of Electronics which was accepted by the Government of India vide Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989. It is only those Senior Key Punch Operators who were in the higher scale of Rs.350-560 having qualification of graduate and whose cale was revised to 1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Irrespective of that different Bench of the CAT without discussing the nature of job, responsibility, accountability and status and rank of the one or other posts of different Data Entry Operators i.e. Grade-A or Grade-B held that they were performing similar duties and are hence entitled for equal pay and eligible for Rs.1350-2200 on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Both the Tribunal and the High Court also failed to notice that the Data Entry Operator Grade-B in the pay scale of Rs.1350- 2200 is a promotional grade and only those who have six years of experience are eligible for such promotion. The promotional grade and entry grade cannot have the same pay scale and in absence of declaration that rationalization of pay scale of Electronic Data Processing posts made by Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1979 is illegal, no such benefit could have been granted.
29. Both the Tribunal and the High Court also failed to notice the statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India issued by the order of the President of India vide notification dated 3rd April, 1992 and notification dated 10.10.1996 from Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions. Both the Tribunal and Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= the High Court also erred in ignoring the law laid down by this Court to plethora of judgments that the "principle 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 of equal pay for equal work" is not always applicable even if duties and functions are of similar nature.
In Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and others, (1989) 2 SCC 235 this Court has inter alia held as follows:- 5. While considering the 29 OA.653/2022 question of application of principle of "Equal pay for equal work" it has to be borne in mind that it is open to the State to classify employees on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned. If the classification has reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, efficiency in the administration, the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scale but if the classification does not stand the test of reasonable nexus and the classification is founded on unreal and unreasonable basis it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equality must be among the equals. Unequal cannot claim equality.
Even assuming that the petitioner performs similar duties and functions as those performed by an Audiologist. It is not sufficient to uphold his claim for equal pay. As already observed , in judging the equality of work for the purposes of equal pay, regard must be had not only to the duties and functions but also to the educational qualifications, qualitative difference and the measures of responsibility prescribed for the respective posts. Even if the duties and functions are of similar nature but if the educational qualifications prescribed for the two posts are different and there is difference in measure of responsibilities, the principle of "Equal pay for equal work" would not apply......"
The latest judgment of CAT PB dated 07/08/2019 in the matter of Smt Santosh Goyal & Ors, cited by the respondents is also diminutive of the plea of pay scale as pleaded therein resulting in the dismissal of the OA. Thus the instant OA is also not maintainable on merits. The issue that the judgement of the 2014 Hon Apex Court is highly specific to the litigants therein and that it has not quashed but merely held as 'wrong' are eminently word play in the context of this OA placing reliance on the Patna CAT judgement (supra). Such interpretations Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= cannot hold the law and the principles therein at ransom in the instant OA as discussed above. The 2014 judgement of the 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Hon Apex Court shall, therefore hold the field for reasons and facts discussed with a tooth comb hereinabove at least insofar as this OA is concerned.
11. In conclusion therefore it is crystal clear that the judgment of the Hon Apex Court in the SLPs 10862 to 10867 30 OA.653/2022 shall apply and the claim of the applicants is not maintainable even on merits, and the OA is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. It is accordingly directed that the order dated 23.01.2020 is upheld and the relief sought in the OA is dismissed with consequential action in respect of pay fixation and pension / pensionary benefits."
14. Thereafter, Lucknow Bench of CAT again considering the similar issue in OA.No.332/00204/2020 dated 07.03.2022 has followed its order in the case of Neeraj Srivastava & Others Vs. Union of India in O.A.No.203/2020.
15. In view of the above conspectus, we find that the arguments of Mr.P.J. Prasad Rao, learned counsel for the applicant that ratio of Rafiq Masih is applicable to the applicant's case is not correct as the applicant himself has given undertaking that in case the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court comes against the applicant he will refund the excess amount. Therefore, the applicant who knowingly has given undertaking is bound by the same as held in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh in Civil Appeal No.3500/2006 decided on 29.7.2016. Moreover, the respondents themselves have waived off the 31 OA.653/2022 recovery of Rs.3,51,925/- considering the financial hardship to the applicant and ordered recovery of only Rs.1,08,164/- which was paid beyond cut off date 03.01.2020.
16. In view of the above facts and circumstances and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the order of Principal Bench and Lucknow Benches of this Tribunal, we do not find any reason to take a different view.
Therefore, we find that OA is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
17. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna)
Member (J) Member (A).
H
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
Milan Jackson
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode= 401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.18 15:48:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0