Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Jyjesh T S vs Deptt Of Electronics Information ... on 8 October, 2025
1
O.A.No.170/00591/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.170/00591/2024
Dated this the 8th day of October 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Jyjesh T.S.,
S/o Sri.Sivasankara Pillai, Aged 45 years,
Ex-Deputy Director (Authentication)
Unique Identification Authority of India,
Technology Centre, Aadhaar Complex,
NTI Layout, Tata Nagar, Kodigehalli,
Bengaluru-560 092,
Residing at No. A-303, VRR Lakeview,
Lake Road, Doddanekundi,
Bengaluru-560 037. ...... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri.A.R.Holla)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
By Secretary,
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
2. The Chief General Manager,
Karnataka Telecom Circle, No.1,
Swami Vivekananda Road, Halasuru,
Bengaluru-560 008.
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2025.10.14
14:43:54+05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/00591/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Unique Identification Authority of India,
Bangal Sahib Road, Behind Kali Mandir,
Gole Market, New Delhi-110001.
4. The Deputy Director General (Admn),
UIDAI Technology Centre,
Aadhar Complex, NTI Layout,
Tata Nagar, Kodigehalli,
Bengaluru-560 092. ......Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri.N.Amaresh for Respondent No.2 and Shri.Vishnu
Bhat for Respondent Nos.1,3 and 4)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, claiming the following reliefs:
"(a) To quash the Order F. No. TC-
UID/ADMIN/GENERAL.
ADMIN/01/BLR/2016-17 dated 27.08.2024 issued by the respondent No.4, Annexure-A9,
(b) Direct the respondents to not recover any amount from the applicant in pursuance of the above order and refund the amount recovered, if any, with interest at 18% per annum to the applicant and
(c) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The reliefs are claimed based on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(i) to 5(iv) of the Original Application. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the synopsis are that the applicant, working in SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.10.14 14:43:54+05'30' 3 O.A.No.170/00591/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BSNL, was deputed to UIDAI to work as Senior System Analyst. He assumed charge of the post on 14.08.2012. The deputation was for 3 years initially, which was extended till 30.09.2021. Her pay was fixed in IDA scale. Thereafter, she opted for fixation of her pay in CDA scale with effect from 01.01.2016 as per the procedure laid down under Rule 7(A) of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 which has been approved by the respondent No.3.
3. Thereafter, the internal auditors raised objection with regard to fixation of her pay in CDA scale with effect from 01.01.2016. Based on the audit objection, the respondent No.3, decided to re-fix the pay of the applicant, reducing the same with effect from 01.01.2016. The applicant was repatriated to BSNL. Thereafter, the applicant challenged the order of re-fixation of his pay before this Tribunal in OA/170/312/2021. This Tribunal allowed OA/170/312/2021 by an order dated 05.07.2023 and the respondent No.3 was directed to reconsider the case and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. However, the respondent No.4 issued a notice to the applicant 22.05.2024 asking him explain as to why Rs.12,25,679/- should not be recovered from the applicant on the ground it is an excess payment. The applicant submitted his reply on 07.06.2024 against the proposed SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.10.14 14:43:54+05'30' 4 O.A.No.170/00591/2024/CAT/BANGALORE recovery. However, the respondent No.4 issued an order dated 27.08.2024 directing the applicant to remit Rs.12,25,679/- to UIDAI on the ground it was paid in excess. The applicant has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the above order dated 27.08.2024 and seeking consequential relief.
4. On notice, the respondent nos.1,3 and 4 have filed their reply statement to the O.A and reply statement for respondent no.2 has been filed separately. No rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the applicant.
5. The case came up for final hearing on 8.10.2025. Shri.A.R.Holla for the applicant, Shri.N.Amaresh for respondent No.2 and Shri.Vishnu Bhat for Respondent Nos.1,3 and 4 were present and heard.
6. We have carefully gone through the entire records and considered the rival contentions.
7. The facts of the case are not disputed and both the parties agreed that the fact of this case is comparable to the facts of the case in O.A Nos.170/564/2024, 565/2024, 566/2024 and 567/2024 and the issues to be decided in this case are identical to the aforementioned O.As. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.10.14 14:43:54+05'30' 5 O.A.No.170/00591/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
8. We have examined the facts of the case and we find it comparable and issues to be decided are identical. Hence, as the contentions raised in this case is no longer res-integra, hence, considering the same, we pass the following orders:
The Original Application is disposed of in terms of the order passed in O.A Nos.170/564/2024, 565/2024, 566/2024 and 567/2024 dated 8.10.2025.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Sv
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2025.10.14
14:43:54+05'30'