Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Swarn Lata vs Prasar Bharati, M/O Information And ... on 20 January, 2026
1- O.A. No. 1173/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/01173/2019
Pronounced on: 20.01.2026
Reserved on: 12.01.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
Smt. Swarn Lata wife of Shri Raj Kumar, aged 62 years, Resident of Flat
No. 3183, Pink Rose Enclave, Sector 49-D, Chandigarh-160046.
(Group 'B')
... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Balwinder Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting BA (P) Section, A Wing, New Delhi-
110001.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharati Secretariat, 7th Floor,
Copper Nicus Marg, New Delhi-110001.
3. Director General, Doordarshan, Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus
Marg, New Delhi-110001.
4. The Pay and Accounts Officer Darshan (M/o Information &
Broadcasting) Room No. 214, 2nd Floor, Akashwani Bhawan, Parliament
Street, New Delhi-110001.
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC along with Mr.
Pankaj Khurana, Advocate and the department
representative Mr. Gurdev Singh, Assistant
Engineer, Doordarshan Kendra.
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
Digitally 1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 signed by MAMTA WADHWA of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:- 2- O.A. No. 1173/2019
(i) Quash the letter / Order dated 4.7.2016 (Annexure A-1) to the extent while sanctioning pension to the applicant, an endorsement has been made that a recovery of Rs.2,31,843/- is to be made from her leave encashment and order dated 1.8.2019 (Annexure A-1/1), vide which the representation filed by applicant against recovery has been rejected only on the ground that the applicant had given an undertaking for making recovery from her, which is illegal and arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of principles of natural justice, harsh and law declared by Hon'ble Apex Court of the country including decision of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in O.A. No. 180/00470/016 (T.Vijayan Vs. Unionof India & others), of All India Radio, in which similar undertaking was held to be of no use and recovery was quashed and set aside.
(ii) Issue directions to the respondents to release the leave encashment of the applicant without any recovery along-with interest @ 12% per annum from the date the amount became due to the actual date of payment in pursuance of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was working as Head Clerk in the respondent department and was drawing pay in the scale of Rs.5500-9000. The pay scales of Head Clerk/Assistant/Stenographers Grade-II carrying the scale of Rs.5500- Digitally signed by MAMTA 9000 were upgraded to Rs.6500-10500 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200 with WADHWA effect from 01.01.2006 vide letter dated 03.10.2012 issued by the Directorate General, AIR, New Delhi. Consequent upon the 3- O.A. No. 1173/2019 implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the said scale was revised to Pay Band Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200 and the pay of the applicant was fixed. Vide order dated 18.04.2012 (Annexure A-2), by taking her existing basic pay of Rs.6550 as on 01.01.2006, multiplying it by the fitment factor of 1.86, arriving at Rs.12190 and thereafter granting one increment, resulting in pay of Rs.17410. The pay was again re-fixed vide order dated 02.04.2013 (Annexure A-3). Both these orders were issued by the respondents themselves and were acted upon.
3. Subsequently, objections were raised by the department regarding fixation of pay of employees and proposals for recovery were initiated. One similarly situated employee challenged such recovery in O.A. No.310/01119/2015 titled A.S. Rajagopal Vs. Union of India & Others, which was allowed on 17.08.2015 (Annexure A-4) by holding that recovery was impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334. Thereafter, the respondent department issued letter dated 29.10.2015 (Annexure A-5) stating that the earlier instructions granting minimum of the upgraded scale were not in accordance with CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, followed by further instructions dated 31.12.2015 (Annexure A-6) regarding fixation by applying the fitment factor of 1.86.
4. In pursuance thereof, the pay of the applicant was reduced and Digitally signed by MAMTA re-fixed vide order dated 15.02.2016 (Annexure A-7) at Rs.16390 WADHWA instead of Rs.17410 and recovery of Rs.2,31,843 was ordered to be made from her leave encashment. At that time, the applicant was due to 4- O.A. No. 1173/2019 retire on 30.06.2016 and her pension papers were forwarded on 22.04.2016. The applicant submitted a representation dated 19.07.2016 (Annexure A-10) pointing out that in view of DoPT O.M. dated 02.03.2016 and the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, no recovery could be effected from her as she was within one year of retirement. She retired from service on 30.06.2016. It was specifically recorded in the departmental communication dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure A-9) that an amount of Rs.2,31,843 had been withheld on account of a pending court case. The Senior Accounts Officer, vide letter dated 23.05.2016 (Annexure A-12), clarified that there was no provision for withholding gratuity except in specified circumstances.
5. Despite this, vide order dated 04.07.2016 (Annexure A-1), the pension of the applicant was released with instructions to recover Rs.2,31,843 from her leave encashment. The case was repeatedly referred by the respondent office to higher authorities for condonation of recovery in view of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, but no decision was taken. In the meantime, similarly situated employees succeeded before the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.180/00299/2018 and connected matters, wherein recovery was quashed and refund was directed.
6. The applicant earlier approached this Tribunal challenging the recovery order dated 04.07.2016, which was disposed of on 18.02.2019 with a direction to the respondents to decide her representation in the Digitally signed by MAMTA light of the law laid down in Rafiq Masih (White Washer). In WADHWA compliance thereof, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 01.08.2019 rejecting the claim of the applicant on the ground that she 5- O.A. No. 1173/2019 had furnished an undertaking dated 07.06.2016 and that her case was not covered by the judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra).
7. The applicant contended that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and suffers from total non-application of mind. It was urged that the fixation of pay was done by the respondents themselves strictly in accordance with the prevailing instructions and without any misrepresentation or fraud on her part, and therefore the subsequent reduction of pay and recovery is unsustainable in law. The applicant asserted that she was a Group „C‟ employee, that the alleged excess payment related to a period much prior to the issuance of the recovery order, and that she was within one year of retirement when recovery was ordered, squarely attracting the prohibitions laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others.
8. It was further contended that recovery from retiral dues such as leave encashment is impermissible in the absence of any statutory provision, especially when no disciplinary or criminal proceedings were pending against her. The applicant submitted that the undertaking relied upon by the respondents is of no legal consequence, as held in T. Vijayan Vs. Union of India & Others, decided by the Ernakulam Bench on 03.10.2018, wherein similar recovery was quashed despite an undertaking. The applicant also pleaded violation of principles of natural justice, as the reduction of pay and recovery were effected without any Digitally signed by MAMTA prior notice or opportunity of hearing, causing serious civil WADHWA consequences.
6- O.A. No. 1173/2019
9. The applicant thus prayed that the impugned order dated 01.08.2019 (Annexure A-1/1), the order dated 04.07.2016 (Annexure A-1) directing recovery, the reduction of her pay and withholding of leave encashment be quashed and set aside, and that the respondents be directed to refund the recovered amount with interest, being her lawful retiral benefit.
10. The respondents filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant. They submitted that the applicant, who retired as Head Clerk from Doordarshan Kendra, Chandigarh on 30.06.2016, was handling establishment and administrative work including pay fixation matters and was fully aware of the applicable rules and instructions. It was contended that she deliberately got her pay fixed vide orders dated 07.12.2012 and 02.04.2013 (Annexures A-2 and A-3), despite knowing that such fixation was subject to post-audit and recovery of overpayment, if detected later.
11. It was submitted that clarifications regarding incorrect fixation were issued by the Department of Expenditure and forwarded by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting vide letter dated 29.10.2015 (Annexure A-5). Upon objection raised by the Inspection Unit of the Directorate General, Doordarshan vide letter dated 19.01.2016 (Annexure R-2), the pay of the applicant was correctly re-fixed on 15.02.2016, resulting in recovery of Rs.2,31,843, which was stated to be strictly as per rules.
Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA 12. The respondents further submitted that the applicant voluntarily furnished an undertaking dated 07.06.2016 (Annexure R-1), requesting recovery of the excess amount from her leave encashment instead of 7- O.A. No. 1173/2019 gratuity, with full knowledge of her impending retirement on 30.06.2016. Having given such an undertaking, the applicant is estopped from seeking waiver of recovery after retirement.
13. It was contended that the applicant does not fall within the exceptions laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others, as the excess payment was not made for more than five years prior to the order of recovery and the recovery was effected on the basis of a specific undertaking. Reliance was also placed on DoP&T O.M. dated 02.03.2016 to submit that cases involving undertakings are excluded from protection against recovery.
14. It was submitted that in compliance with the directions of this Tribunal dated 18.02.2019, the claim of the applicant was duly examined and rejected vide reasoned order dated 01.08.2019 (Annexure A-1/1), which does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness.
15. Reliance was placed on Sunder Lal & Others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 P&H 241, and High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Others Vs. Jagdev Singh, Civil Appeal No.3500 of 2006 decided on 29.07.2016, to contend that an erroneous benefit can be corrected and recovery is permissible where an undertaking has been furnished. The respondents therefore prayed for dismissal of the Original Application. Digitally signed by MAMTA
16. By way of MA No. 99/2025, the applicant placed on record WADHWA additional material to contend that the pay fixation granted to her was in compliance with the departmental order dated 03.10.2012 (Annexure 8- O.A. No. 1173/2019 A-21) issued by the Head Office, and that similar benefit was extended to other employees of the respondent department, namely Smt. Shirley George, Stenographer Grade II, Sh. Ramesh Lal, UDC, Smt. Sushma Kothari, Head Clerk, as well as Sh. Amar Singh and Sh. Om Parkash, Head Clerks, without any recovery. It was urged that the fixation orders dated 07.12.2012 (Annexure A-2) and 02.04.2013 (Annexure A-3) were issued by the competent authority and merely implemented by the applicant, being head clerk. It has been reiterated that the recovery effected on 04.07.2016, after her retirement on 30.06.2016, was impermissible in view of the law laid down in State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and other decisions relied upon.
17. The respondents, while opposing the MA, submitted that re- fixation of all the similarly placed employees has been done, and the recovery from those employees, named in the MA, has been made. No new facts or legal grounds were made out warranting interference, and that the cases relied upon by the applicant were distinguishable on facts. It was contended that the applicant‟s case stood on a different footing in view of the incorrect fixation detected during audit and the undertaking furnished by her, and that parity could not be claimed merely on the basis of pay fixation of other employees. The respondents, therefore, prayed for rejection of the MA, while the applicant sought that Annexures A-21 to A-24, which are pay fixation Digitally order qua other employees, be taken on record for proper adjudication signed by MAMTA WADHWA of the Original Application.
9- O.A. No. 1173/2019
18. I have gone through the pleadings and heard learned counsel for the parties.
19. It is not in dispute that the applicant was working as Head Clerk at Doordarshan Kendra, Chandigarh, and retired on superannuation on 30.06.2016. It is also undisputed that her pay was fixed vide orders dated 07.12.2012 and 02.04.2013 pursuant to implementation of the departmental order dated 03.10.2012, and that such fixation was expressly made subject to post-audit verification and recovery of overpayment, if any. It is an admitted position that upon audit objection raised by the Inspection Unit of the Directorate General, Doordarshan vide letter dated 19.01.2016, the pay of the applicant was re-fixed on 15.02.2016, resulting in detection of excess payment amounting to ₹2,31,843/-. It is further undisputed that the applicant furnished a written undertaking dated 07.06.2016 consenting to recovery of the excess amount from her leave encashment in lieu of gratuity, and that recovery was effected accordingly. It is also not in dispute that, in compliance with the directions of this Tribunal dated 18.02.2019, the respondents reconsidered the applicant‟s claim and rejected the same by a reasoned order dated 01.08.2019.
20. The applicant contended that the recovery effected from her leave encashment is illegal and impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), as the recovery was made after her Digitally signed by MAMTA retirement and there was no misrepresentation or fraud on her part. It WADHWA was urged that the pay fixation granted to her was pursuant to the departmental order dated 03.10.2012 issued by the Head Office, and 10- O.A. No. 1173/2019 that similarly situated employees were extended the same benefit. It was further contended that the applicant had merely implemented the fixation orders issued by the competent authority and cannot be faulted for any alleged error therein.
20. Per contra, the respondents submitted that the applicant‟s case stands on an entirely different footing. It was contended that while working as UDC and later as Head Clerk, the applicant was entrusted with establishment and administrative work, including matters relating to pay fixation, and was fully conversant with the applicable rules, instructions and subsequent clarifications issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Prasar Bharati Secretariat and Doordarshan Directorate, New Delhi. It was specifically pleaded that despite being aware of the clarification dated 28.07.2015, forwarded on 29.10.2015, regarding erroneous fixation of pay of Head Clerks and Stenographer Grade II, the applicant deliberately did not take timely steps for correction and allowed the excess payment to continue. It was further submitted that the re-fixation of her pay was carried out only on 15.02.2016 after an objection was raised by the Inspection Unit of the Directorate General, Doordarshan vide letter dated 19.01.2016. The respondents emphasised that the applicant had voluntarily furnished an undertaking dated 07.06.2016 (Annexure R-1) seeking recovery from her leave encashment instead of DCRG, and therefore cannot resile from the same. It was also contended that Digitally recovery has been effected from similarly situated persons wherever signed by MAMTA WADHWA wrong fixation was detected, and hence no discrimination is involved. 11- O.A. No. 1173/2019
21. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record carefully. The undisputed position that emerges is that the applicant, during the relevant period, was part of the administrative establishment dealing with pay fixation matters and was fully aware of the rules as well as the subsequent clarifications issued by the competent authorities regarding erroneous fixation of pay of Head Clerks and allied cadres. The record further shows that despite such knowledge, the applicant did not initiate timely corrective action despite repeated orders from the department on 10.06.2013, 28.07.2015, 29.10.2015 and 31.12.2015 and permitted the excess payment to subsist until it was detected during inspection. The re-fixation of pay was thus not voluntary or proactive, but was undertaken only after an audit objection was raised. Moreover, there was a stipulation in pay fixation order (Annexure A-12) that "the fixation of pay is subject to the post audit observations & overpayment, if any noticed subsequently be recovered in lump sum without any notice". The applicant is bound by the said condition. The pay fixation order is to be read in whole and not in isolation to the extent of fixation of pay in higher side @6500/-
22. In these circumstances, the plea that there was no misrepresentation or fault on the part of the applicant cannot be accepted. The facts clearly indicate that the applicant, being well aware of the error and the corrective instructions, intentionally delayed the matter and failed to put up the case for timely re-fixation, thereby Digitally continuing to draw excess payment. The subsequent furnishing of an signed by MAMTA WADHWA undertaking for recovery further reinforces the respondents‟ stand that the applicant was conscious of the excess payment and its recoverability.
12- O.A. No. 1173/2019
23. The reliance placed by the applicant on Rafiq Masih and other judgments on similar line is also misplaced. Firstly, the recovery in the present case does not pertain to excess payment made for a period exceeding five years prior to the order of recovery. Secondly, and more importantly, the protection carved out in Rafiq Masih is not available in cases where the employee is herself responsible for the erroneous fixation or where recovery is effected pursuant to a conscious undertaking. The applicant‟s case, therefore, does not fall within the protective exceptions laid down therein.
24. I also find merit in the contention of the respondents that recovery has been effected from similarly situated employees wherever wrong fixation was detected, and the applicant cannot claim immunity merely on the ground of parity. Each case has to be examined on its own facts, and the applicant‟s role in the administrative process of pay fixation materially distinguishes her case.
25. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the respondents have rejected the representation of applicant merely on the basis of undertaking dated 07.06.2016 furnished by the applicant and there were no other ground taken by the respondents in deciding the claim. He has relied upon a judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election commissioner, New Delhi and Others, (1978) 1 SCC 405, wherein it has been held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that Digitally signed by MAMTA the action is to be judged by the reasons stated while making the WADHWA order and supplementary reasons in the shape of affidavits to be excluded. I have gone through the judgment relied upon by the 13- O.A. No. 1173/2019 applicant. From the perusal of material, I find that the factum of recovery of other six similarly situated persons/colleagues of the applicant by way of reply to the MA has been placed on record by the respondents, in rebuttal to the change of stand by the applicant from non involvement in pay fixation to no recovery from other employees. The respondents by way of reply to MA No. 99/2025 have placed on record details of recovery effected from the similarly situated persons. Therefore, the contention of applicant that the respondents have supplemented their stand with the additional affidavit is meritless and rejected.
26. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the action of the respondents in re-fixing the pay of the applicant and effecting recovery of the excess amount. The contentions raised by the applicant are devoid of merit and are accordingly rejected. The Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (J) Dated: 20.01.2026 „mw‟ Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA