Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
P Vijay Reddy vs M/O Finance on 28 January, 2026
1
OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOs.021/00785/2017 & 021/00058/2017
ORDER RESERVED ON 04.12.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 28.01.2026
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
(OA.No.021/00785/2017)
P.Vijay Reddy, S/o. Late Shri P.S.N.Reddy
Aged about 57 years, Occ: Jt.Dy.Director
Intelligence Bureau (M.H.A., Govt. of India)
Warangal r/o 2-7-709, Excise Colony, Subedari
Hanmakonda-506001, Warangal Urban District. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri M.Hara Bhupal)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary
Department of Expenditure
Ministry of Finance, Government of India
North Block, NEW DELHI-110001.
2. The Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training
Government of India
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Chairman and Managing Director
Security Printing & Minting Corpn. Of India Ltd.
16th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhavan
Janpath, NEW DELHI-110001.
4. The General Manager
Security Printing Press
Mint Compound, Saifabad
HYDERABAD-500063.
5. The Manager (HR)
Security Printing Press
(Ministry of Finance)
Saifabad, HYDERABAD-500063.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRL
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad,
S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR
HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a
APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768
772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected],
CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
SANDHYA document
Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017
6. The Assistant Director (Est.)
Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau
(MHA, Govt. of India)
4-5-358-373, Beside Kendriya Sadan
Sultan Bazar, HYDERABAD - 500095. ....Respondents
(By Advocates: Sri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.PC for CG & K.Rajitha, Sr.PC for CG)
(OA.No.021/00058/2017)
P.Vijay Reddy, S/o. Late Shri P.S.N.Reddy
Aged about 57 years, Occ: Jt.Dy.Director
Intelligence Bureau (M.H.A., Govt. of India)
Warangal r/o 2-7-709, Excise Colony, Subedari
Hanmakonda-506001, Warangal Urban District. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri M.Hara Bhupal)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary
Department of Expenditure
Ministry of Finance, Government of India
North Block, NEW DELHI-110001.
2. The Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training
Government of India
North Block, NEW DELHI-110001.
3. The Director
Intelligence Bureau
Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India
North Block, NEW DELHI-110001.
4. The Joint Director
Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau
(MHA, Govt. of India)
Mumbai-400051.
5. The Deputy Director
Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau
(MHA, Govt. of India)
4-5-368-373, Beside Kendriya Sadan
Sultan Bazar, HYDERABAD-500095.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRL
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad,
S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR
HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a
APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768
772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected],
CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
SANDHYA document
Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
3
OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017
6. The Drawing & Disbursing Officer
Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (MHA, GOI)
(MHA, Govt. of India)
4-5-368-373, Beside Kendriya Sadan
Sultan Bazar, HYDERABAD-500095.
7. The Deputy General Manager &
Head of the Department
Security Printing Press
(Ministry of Finance)
Saifabad, HYDERABAD-500004. ....Respondents
(By Advocates: Sri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.PC for CG & K.Rajitha, Sr.PC for CG)
*****
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRL
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad,
S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR
HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a
APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768
772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected],
CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
SANDHYA document
Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
4
OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. As the applicant in both the OAs is the same, the two OAs have been taken up together for consideration and passing a common order. With the consent of both the parties, Original Application No.785/2017 is being treated as the lead case.
2. The relief sought by the applicant, in OA.No.785 of 2017, is as follows:
(i) To declare the Letter No.SPP/HR/2017-18/Ex.IO-Vig/6th CPC/1667 dated 18.7.2017 of Respondent No.5 conveying to Respondent No.6 the decision to recover alleged excess payment made to the applicant by way of increment at 4% and consequential further letter No.SPP/HR/Vigilance/Ex.V.O./ 2016-17/2164 dated 16.8.2017 of R-5 requesting R6 to recover Rs.13,980/- from the applicant and remit the said amount to SSP Hyderabad, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same.
(ii) To declare that sanction of 4% higher rate of increment to the applicant from 1.7.2009 by the then competent authority viz., the Dy.General Manager & Head of the Department of SPP, Hyderabad was as per Rule 9 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 and hence the applicant is entitled to retain the benefits accrued on account thereof during the period of his deputation with R-4 office.
(iii) Awarding costs to the applicant.
And/or pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the circumstances of the case.
3. The relief sought in OA.No.58 of 2017, is as follows:
(i) To declare the Office Order No.E/381/2016 bearing endorsement No.7/PF(Mum)/2011(7)-2826 dated 22.11.2016 passed by Respondent No.4 re-fixing applicant's pay as on 3.10.2011 by notionally calculating his last pay drawn on repatriation from deputation as Rs.22910/- plus Rs.5400/- GP instead of Rs.23190/- plus Rs.5400/- GP, the pay actually drawn by the applicant, and consequential re-fixation of his pay on promotion as Assistant Director on 3.10.2011 at Rs.23700/- plus Rs.6600/- GP, as arbitrary, without any authority and illegal and violative of articles 14, 16, 1 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017
(ii) To declare that the consequential Office Order No.13/2017 bearing endorsement No.5/Est(PF)/2014(2)-71 dated 11.1.2017 passed by Respondent No.5 and further Memo No.Hyd-012/26(Misc)/2015-16-59 dated 18.1.2017 issued by Respondent No.6 ordering for recovery of alleged excess payment made to the applicant, are arbitrary and illegal and set aside the same.
(iii) To declare that the applicant is entitled to retain the benefits accrued on account of variable rate of increment at 4% granted to him by Respondent No.7 as on 1.7.2009 on permanent basis throughout his service.
(iv) To consequently direct the Respondent No4 to treat his pay on repatriation from deputation as on 3.10.2011 as Rs.23,190/- plus Rs.5,400/- Grade Pay and to re-fix his pay on promotion as Assistant Director on 3.10.2011 at appropriate place.
(v) To further direct the Respondent No.5 consequently to re-fix the pay of the applicant on his promotion as Jt.Dy.Director on 1.1.2017 at appropriate stage and pay arrears to the applicant.
(vi) Awarding costs to the applicant.
And/or pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the circumstances of the case.
4. In OA.No.58/2017, interim orders, dt.30.01.2017 & 01.05.2017, have been passed, which are as follows:
Date: 30.01.2017 "The interim relief sought for is to stay all further proceedings pursuant to impugned orders dated 22.11.2016, 11.1.2017 and 18.1.2017 in connection with the re-fixation of pay and consequential recovery of excess payment to the tune of Rs.76,590/- from the pay of the applicant in instalments starting from January, 2017.
The learned standing counsel strongly opposed for grant of interim relief on the ground that he is going to file the reply as expeditiously as possible so that the grant of interim stay can be considered after taking into the averments made in the reply statement.
However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the recovery of alleged excess payment is stayed only for the month of January, 2017. The respondents are directed to file their reply before 24.2.2017."
Date: 01.05.2017 "As a last opportunity, the Respondents are granted further time to file their reply statement by the next date of hearing, failing which heavy costs will be imposed.
In the meanwhile, the interim orders are extended till the next date of hearing."
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017
5. This Tribunal has passed the interim order, dt.18.09.2017, in OA.No.785/2017, as follows:
"Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
2. There shall be stay of recovery from the applicant in pursuance of the impugned order dated 16.8.2017 till the next date of hearing."
6. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
i. The applicant, an employee of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), Ministry of Home Affairs(MHA), Government of India(G.O.I.), was working as Joint Deputy Director (JDD)/Executive (Level 12), at Warangal, under the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (SIB), Hyderabad (Office of the 6th Respondent herein).
ii. While working as the Deputy Central Intelligence Officer (Dy.C.I.O., for short) (GP 5400) in the I.B., the applicant was sent on deputation, as Vigilance Officer at the Security Printing Press (SPP for short), Hyderabad (3rd Respondent Organization). He joined there as such on 17.8.2007. At the time of his joining the SPP, Hyderabad, SSP was a department under the Dept. of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance.
Consequent on his promotion in his parent department (I.B.) as Assistant Director (A.D., for short) (GP 6600), and posting to SIB, Mumbai, the applicant got relieved from the deputation post at the SPP, Hyderabad, on 20.09.2011 (AN) and joined the SIB, Mumbai, on 03.10.2011 (FN), as A.D.(Executive), after availing the usual joining time. Thus, the applicant was on deputation from 17.8.2007 to 20.09.2011. The terms and conditions of deputation for the applicant, when the SPP, Hyderabad, was as a Department of the G.O.I. and after it was corporatized, w.e.f. 1.11.2008, are governed by DOP&T Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 OM No.2/29/9/Estt. (Pay-II), dt.5.1.1994, which was, later, superseded by DOP&T OM No.6/8/2009-Estt. (Pay-II), dt.17.06.2010, with retrospective effect from 1.1.2006.
iii. At the time of his joining S.P.P. as Vigilance Officer, his pay was Rs.19740 plus Rs.5400 Grade Pay. The date of increment was 1st July, every year, and the SPP released increments on due dates, raising his pay on the 1st July, every year, during applicant's tenure of deputation with them. The applicant was granted 3% increment on 1.7.2008. However, considering the applicant's high performance with them, the Dy.General Manager & Head of the Department, Security Printing Press, granted him increment at the higher rate of 4%, w.e.f. 1.7.2009, as provided for in Rule 8 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, for Pay Band 3 category of employees, after implementation of VI PRC Report. On 1.7.2010, he was granted 3% increment, raising his pay to Rs.22350/- + Rs.5400/- GP, followed by the next increment of 3% on 01.07.2011, increasing his pay to Rs.23190/- + Rs.5400/- GP.
Consequent to his promotion in his parent cadre of I.B., as A.D. (Executive), the applicant was repatriated on 20.9.2011 (AN) from the SPP. The applicant joined the SIB, Mumbai, as A.D./Exe., on 3.10.2011 (FN), after availing joining time.
iv. After his repatriation from deputation and rejoining at SIB, Mumbai, and, thereafter, at SIB, Hyderabad, the applicant was granted 3% increment on the 1st July, every year, taking into account his last pay of Rs.23190 plus 5400 GP drawn, as on 30.9.2011, the date of his repatriation from the SPP, Hyderabad.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 v. It is further submitted by the applicant that he drew his pay at Rs.27,910/- + Rs.6600/- GP, as on 31.12.2015, and, after introduction of the 7th CPC scales, his pay was fixed at Rs.91,100/- at Level 11, as on 1.1.2016. At that time, one of applicant's seniors, in the cadre of A.D., was learnt to have represented that the pay of the applicant, who is junior to him, was fixed at a higher stage than his, in the Revised 7th PRC scales, and, hence, requested for stepping up of his pay, on par with the applicant. At that time, the Intelligence Bureau Headquarters (IB Hqrs.), re-looked at the pay fixation of the applicant and noticed that the difference had arisen owing to the applicant having been granted his annual increment, at the higher rate of 4%, instead of the normal rate of 3%, as on 1.7.2009, during his deputation with the S.S.P., Hyderabad. Hence, on 22.11.2016, they decided to re-fix the pay of the applicant, by notionally granting annual increment @ 3% from the date of his deputation to the SSP till the date of his joining back the I.B. at Mumbai. Consequently, they re-fixed the applicant's pay, on promotion as Assistant Director, on 3.10.2011, at Rs.23,760/- plus Rs.6,600/- Grade Pay, by reducing the pay from the stage of Rs.24,050/- plus Rs.6,600/- GP and, thereafter, re-fixed it every year with the grant of annual increments till 31.12.2016, finally, determining his pay as Rs.91,100 (Level 11) under the 7th PRC scales, instead of Rs.93,800/-, actually sanctioned and drawn earlier. As a sequel, the IB calculated that an amount was Rs.76,590/- was paid in excess to the applicant from the date of his joining back in I.B., on 3.10.2011, on repatriation from deputation, till 31.12.2016, and vide, Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 SIB, Hyderabad, Memorandum, dt.18.1.2017, ordered recovery of Rs.76,590/- from the pay of the applicant in 20 instalments @ Rs.3830/- p.m., from January, 2017, onwards. The said decision of re- fixing the pay of the applicant to a lower stage and recovery of the alleged excess amount was challenged by the applicant by filing OA No.21/58/2017 before this Tribunal, on 30.1.2017, and he obtained interim orders suspending recovery of the amount. vi. It is submitted that, after filing of OA.No.58/2017, SIB, Hyderabad, (R-6) wrote a letter, dt.17.2.2017, to the General Manager (G.M., for short) SPP, Hyderabad, (R-4) seeking clarification as to under which rule the SPP, Hyderabad, had granted increment at the higher rate of 4% to the applicant, as no instructions/guidelines were received from the DOP&T, in pursuance of their OM No.1/1/2009-Estt.Pay.1, dt.3.7.2009, in this regard. In turn, R-4/G.M., SPP, Hyderabad, sought comments from the Pay & Accounts Officer, SPP, Hyderabad, and the latter commented as under -
"....... as per Rule 13(1) of CCS (RP) Rules 2008 and OM dated 13.9.2008 and 29.1.2009 increment is drawn at the rate of 3% for all central Government employees. Suggestions for grant of variable increments to high performance in pay band 3 were circulated by the DOPT vide Lr.No.1/1/2009-Estt.Pay.1 dated 3.7.2009. Recommendations for granting higher rate of increments were not released by the DOPT so far."
vii. Accordingly, R-5 wrote the impugned letter, dt.16.8.2017, to R6, requesting the latter for recovery of the alleged excess payment of Rs.13,980/- from the applicant and for remitting the same to SPP, Hyderabad.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017
7. The grounds raised by the applicant for relief, are as follows:-
i. The action of Respondent Nos.4 & 5 in deciding to recover the alleged excess payment of Rs.13,980/-, made on account of increment sanctioned @ 4%, is arbitrary and illegal. ii. The applicant, a Group A officer, drawing pay in Pay Band-3, was sanctioned variable increment, at the higher rate, considering his high achievements in discharge of his duties, during the previous year (July 2008-June 2009), as provided for in Rule 9 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 {and FR 26(13)}. Thus, sanction of higher annual increment, at the rate of 4%, to the applicant, w.e.f. 1.7.2009, is as per rules and there is no impropriety.
iii. The Union Government (R-1), vide its Resolution had conveyed its decision, among others, to grant annual increments to Group-A officers in Pay Band-3, at the normal rate of 3% to not less than 80% of the employees in the Grade and at a variable higher rate of 4% to the remaining 20% high performers, during the year, as recommended by the 6th PRC. The said decision was included at Para 1 (v) of the Notified Resolution, dt.29.08.2008, as well as at item (VII) (ii) (annual increments) in Part-A of Annexure-I to the said Resolution. Simultaneously, the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, (Statutory Rules) were also promulgated, vide GSR 622E, dt.29.8.2008, by R1 and Rule 9 therein covers grant of variable increments at 3% and 4% in the case of PB-3. Thus, the grant of variable increment at the higher rate of 4% to the applicant, who was a Group-A officer, drawing pay Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 in Pay Band-3, on 1.7.2009, considering his higher performance, by the then competent authority, is not illegal or improper. iv. In the case of pay scales and allied matters, like increments, etc., it is the Finance Ministry, viz., Respondent No.1, which is competent to issue orders. The Finance Ministry had issued Resolution No.1/1/2008-I C, dt.29.8.2008, accepting the recommendations of the 6th Pay Revision Commission as well as the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. DOPT only issues clarifications, etc., whenever and wherever required, in conformity with R-1 decisions, and not in supersession of R-1 decisions. Mere absence of any specific instruction or guideline from the DOPT in the matter of grant of higher rate of increment at 4% does not make Rule 9 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, framed by R-1, non-implementable or un-enforceable.
v. Respondents failed to notice that DOPT (R-2), vide its OM, dt.3.7.2009, merely sought suggestions from the Ministries/Departments, but there is no mention therein directing the Ministries/Departments not to implement Rule 9 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, as far as grant of higher rate of annual increment @ 4% to high achievers is concerned. The said rule provision was also not kept in abeyance till date.
vi. The action of Respondents 4 & 5 in deciding to recover the alleged excess payment of Rs.13,980/- merely on the basis of the clarification sought by R-6, after the applicant filed OA.No.58/2017 against the R- 6 department, is arbitrary and illegal. Further, writing to R-6 to recover the said amount from the applicant, without issuing any show- Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 cause notice to him and without cancelling or modifying the original increment sanction order, dt.17.7.2009, is against the principles of natural justice. R-4 ought to have reviewed his own office order, dt.17.7.2009, sanctioning 4% increment to the applicant first, without being influenced by R-6's letter, dt.18.1.2017, especially since the audit parties at the relevant time had not adversely pointed out the said sanction of 4% increment. This was not done.
8. On notice, Respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed their reply statement, wherein they have averred as follows:
i. Shri P.Vijaya Reddy, Dy.C.I.O. in the I.B., joined the SPP, as Vigilance Officer, on deputation basis, on 17.08.2007, in the pay scale of Rs.15,600 - Rs.39,100 (P.B.3) with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-. The post of Dy.Central Intelligence Officer (IB), MHA, and that of Vigilance Officer, SPP Hyd., are of equivalent Grade Pay of Rs.5400. As per the extant rules of the Govt. of India (G.o.I.), the officer was granted annual increment at the rate of 3%, on 01.07.2008. He was granted annual increment @ 4% w.e.f. 01.07.2009, vide Order No.SPP/HOD/Annual Increment/2009/81, dt.17.07.2009, issued by the then DGM & HOD, SPP, Hyderabad, which is against the Rules and Regulations of the G.o.I. ii. The applicant, Shri Vijaya Reddy, was repatriated to his parent Deptt.
on 20.09.2011, after completion of deputation with the Security Printing Press, Hyderabad. At the time of fixation of his pay, in terms of the 7th CPC orders, it was noticed by his parent dept. that the applicant's pay had been fixed higher than that of his immediate Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 seniors in the parent dept. On this, the parent dept. of the applicant, i.e., the Intelligence Bureau, re-fixed the pay of the applicant, as on 03.10.2011, notionally, taking the increment granted on 01.07.2009, as 3%, instead of 4%, and, further, ordered recovery of Rs.76,590/-, calculated as excess payment made to the applicant, in 20 monthly instalments, w.e.f. January, 2017.
iii. Respondent No.6, i.e., Asst. Director/E, S.I.B., Hyderabad, issued letter, dt.17.02.2017, requesting Respondent No.4, i.e., SPP, Hyderabad, for clarification as to under which rule the SPP, Hyderabad, had granted increment, at the higher rate.
iv. In the communication, dt.05.07.2017, received from the Intelligence Cell (IB) SPP, Hyderabad, a copy of communication, dt.04.07.2017, from the Sr.Accounts Officer, Pay and Accounts Officer (PAO), S.S.P., Hyderabad, was enclosed, stating that, as per Govt. of India rules in force, the annual increment is drawn at the rate of 3% for all the central govt. employees. Suggestions for grant of variable increments to high performance in Pay Band-3 were sought by the DOPT, vide letter, dt. 03.07.2009, but recommendations for grant of higher rate of increment were not released by the DOPT, so far. The PAO, SPP, Hyderabad, further stated that, in the present case, grant of 4% for a normal annual increment by the sanctioning authority is not in order. Hence, excess payment made may be recovered. It is seen from the Office Order, dt.17.07.2009, of the by the SPP, Hyderabad, that the unit had granted 4% Annual Increment to Shri P.Vijaya Reddy, in Pay Band-3 and Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-, as per the Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 provisions of the 6th CPC recommendations, accepted by the Govt., which is not true and there was error, on the part of the respondents, in interpretation of the rule position. Further, in the said Office Order, dt.17.07.2009, there is no mention regarding grant of higher rate of increment for the applicant's high performance, as claimed by the petitioner. Neither the applicant's performance was rated as high during his deputation at the S.S.P., Hyderabad, nor provisions of the rule were brought out in this regard.
v. In view of the said audit remarks of the PAO, SPP, Hyderabad, a communication was sent, vide SPP, Hyderabad, letter, dt.18.07.2017, to the Office of the S.I.B. (MHA), Hyderabad. Till the issuance of the above said communication, dt.18.07.2017, SPP, Hyderabad, was not aware of the stay orders passed by the Tribunal, nor a copy of the same was sent to the concerned in the SPP, Hyderabad/SPMCIL. vi. During 2016, at the time of re-fixation of the pay of the applicant, as per the 7th CPC recommendations, it was noticed by the parent cadre, i.e., MHA that the applicant's pay had been fixed higher than that of his immediate seniors. Therefore, MHA decided to refix the pay of the applicant, as on 03.10.2011, by reducing the same to the lower stage, notionally. This pay was re-fixed, as on 03.10.2011, taking his increment granted on 01.07.2009 as 3%, instead of 4%, and recovery of Rs.76,590/-, was ordered towards excess payment made to the applicant. Aggrieved by the action initiated by the MHA, the applicant filed OA.No.58 of 2017. The filing of the said OA by the Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 applicant came to the knowledge of the SPP, Hyderabad, after service of a copy, on the 29th July, 2017.
vii. Communication No.SPP/ HR /Vigilance /Ex-V .O /2016-17 /2165, dt.16.08.2017, was sent by R-4 to Respondent No.6, i.e., Office of the A.D.(E), S.I.B., Hyderabad, intimating that the outstanding amount of Rs.13,980/- was recoverable, on account of Audit objection to grant of higher rate of 4% increment to Shri P.V.Reddy, while on deputation to the SPP, Hyderabad, as against the admissible rate of 3% increment.
viii. Respondent No.3, SPMCIL, in the communication, dt.17.10.2017, stated as under -
"It appears that the grant of 4% annual increment in place of normal rate of 3% to Sri P.Vijaya Reddy, Ex-Intelligence Officer (IB), a bonafide error of judgment and misinterpretation of the circular in question on the part of the then DGM / HOD of the unit as the Gazette notification No.470 Part II Section-3, Sub-section (i), dt.29.08.2008 contained this stipulation, though no formal orders were issued by DoPT. Apparently, no malafide or wrongful intention has been noticed. Unit is requested to ensure that the amount of Rs.13,980/- is recovered from Sri Vijaya Reddy and remitted to SPP, Hyderabad."
It is argued that the applicant should not take benefit of wrong orders issued by Respondent No.4. The excess amounts paid to the applicant on account of the higher rate of increment @ 4%, in the year 2009, is liable for recovery.
9. Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA by further emphasising that, as per the Govt. of India rules in force, the annual increment is drawn at the rate of 3% for all the central govt. employees. As per the observations of PAO, Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 SPP, Hyderabad, in the present case, granting of 4% for a normal annual increment by the then sanctioning authority is not in order, and, hence, the Order, dt.17.07.2009, issued by the DGM & HOD, SPP, Hyderabad, be treated as null and void.
10. In the reply statement filed by S.I.B./Respondent No.6, submission is made as follows -
i. It is accepted that, in 2008, the applicant was given increment in the month of July by Respondents - 4 & 5 @ 3%. However, with effect from 1.7.2009, the applicant was granted increment @ 4% by Respondents 4 & 5. Thereafter, he was granted increment @ 3%, every year. On promotion, in the parent department, the applicant was repatriated on 20.9.2011. The applicant then joined the I.B., on 3.10.2011, as A.D./Exe., and, taking into consideration the Last Pay Certificate (LPC) issued by the Security Printing Press, his pay was fixed at Rs.24050 + Rs.6600 Grade Pay. As a result of granting 4% increment, w.e.f. 1.7.2009, he continued to draw more pay than his seniors on repatriation to his parent cadre. Subsequently, the pay of the applicant was scrutinized, when his senior, Sri G.K.Balaji Rao, submitted a representation for stepping up of his pay at par with the applicant. Upon study of the records of the applicant with reference to those of Sri G.K.Balaji Rao, it came to light that the I.B. had, inadvertently, fixed more than the entitled pay, taking into account the LPC issued by the S.S.P. Therefore, to certify the anomaly in pay, I.B. modified the pay of the applicant, on 22.11.2016, by granting annual Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 increment (notionally) @ 3% from the date of his deputation to the SPP till his joining back in the Intelligence Bureau. As per the LPC and the due and drawn statement, issued by the IB, recovery of the overpaid pay and allowances, amounting to Rs.76,590/-, commenced from the pay of the applicant from January 2017 @ Rs.3,830/-, per month. A clarification was sought from the SPP, on 17.2.2017, as to under which Rule, increment was granted @ 4% to the applicant. Respondent No.5, vide letter, dt.18.7.2017, communicated the observation of the PAO as above that grant of 4% increment was not in order; hence, recovery of excess payment for the period of deputation be made. The amount of Rs.13,980/- was requested to be recovered and remitted to the Security Printing Press. ii. It is argued that though grant of 4% increment to the higher performers, not exceeding 20% of Group A Officers in PB-3, was accepted by the Government, no guidelines were formulated in this regard, as on 1.7.2009. The GoI issued OM, dt.3.7.2009, requesting all the Ministries/Departments to send suggestions within a month, i.e., by 3.8.2009, in order to formulate guidelines for granting variable rate of increment. Therefore, grant of higher rate of increment by Respondent No.4, in the absence of government guidelines, is irregular.
iii. Though it was decided to recover excess pay and allowances to the tune of Rs.76,590, in 20 instalments @ Rs.3,830/- per month, from January, 2017, onwards, in compliance with the interim orders, dt.30.01.2017, 30.03.2017 and 01.05.2017, of this Tribunal, in Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 18 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 OA.No.58/2017, recovery was stopped from the pay of April, 2017, onwards and the amount of Rs.11,490/-, already recovered during January, February and March, 2017, was repaid to the applicant, on 19.05.2017, as per Ann.R-2.
iv. It is further explained that since the applicant had filed OA.No.58/2017 and a counter statement had to be submitted by R-6, clarification was sought from R-4, on 17.02.2017, regarding Rule under which 4% increment was granted to the applicant for incorporating the same in the counter, upon which R-5, vide letter, dt.18.7.2017, communicated the observation of their Pay & Accounts Officer that the order granting 4% increment was not in order, since no guidelines had been formulated by the GoI in this regard.
11. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant to the reply statement of Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The points made in the OA have been reiterated as follows -
i. The averment of the respondents that the grant of 4% increment to the applicant, w.e.f. 1.7.2009, vide order, dt.17.7.2009, is against the rules and regulations of the Govt. of India is again denied. It is contended that Rule 9 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, provides for grant of variable rates of increment, at 3% and 4%, to officers drawing Pay Band-3 scale. The applicant was an officer drawing PB-3 scale.
Hence, grant of increment @ 4% to him was not against any Rules or Regulations. There is no order from the Government either withdrawing that provision from Rule 9 or suspending its operation, till date.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 19 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 ii. It is also submitted that against the re-fixation of his pay and order for recovery of Rs.76,590/-, he had filed OA.No.58/2017 before this Tribunal and obtained an interim stay against the recovery proceedings. The said OA is still pending adjudication. It is only after filing of the said OA, that the I.B. had sought clarification, vide letter, dt.17.2.2017, from the SPP, and only, thereafter, the PAO of the SPP also wrongly presumed that grant of 4% increment to the applicant was not in order, simply because the parent office of the applicant suggested so to the SPP. When the increment was granted, it was not objected to by the PAO while passing the pay bills of the applicant. The PAO (Audit Office) of the SPP now stating, nearly 8 years after grant of increment at the higher rate of 4%, on 17.7.2009, that it was not in order and was against the rules, is not acceptable, in the light of Rule 9 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008.
iii. It is further argued that, in reply to the applicant's parent office letter, dt.17.2.2017, Respondent No.4's office, vide their letter, dt. 2.3.2017, informed that the requisite records could not be traced by them, in spite of their best efforts, and, hence, in the absence of old records, they were unable to furnish the requisite clarification as to how 4% increment was granted to the applicant. This assertion of non- availability of record may not be acceptable. It is also to be considered as to how the respondents could now assert that the performance of the applicant was not rated high during his deputation with the SPP. iv. According to the applicant, the Respondents are estopped now, after a lapse of eight years, from saying that grant of 4% increment to the Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 20 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 applicant, in July, 2009 was illegal. Similarly, the P.A.O. of the Security Printing Press, who had passed the pay bills of the applicant without any objection during 2009-10, could not, in the name of audit objection, after 8 years, state that grant of 4% increment was against the rules.
12. The applicant has also filed written notes of argument, wherein it is again contended that -
i. Sanction of increment at higher rate of 4% is as per the existing statutory Pay Rules of 2008. The repeated contention of the Respondents, more particularly that of Respondent No.6, in their counters, that no guidelines were issued by the Dept. of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) for sanction of 4% increment is not tenable. That separate guidelines were not formulated by the DoP&T is immaterial.
When a specific provision of Rule exists, it is meant for implementation and no further guidelines or modalities are necessary.
ii. Even in the circular memorandum, dt.3.7.2009, the DoP&T had simply asked for suggestions from various ministries and departments, but had not issued any direction not to implement Rule 9 of the Revised Pay Rules, 2008, with regard to grant of variable increment @ 4% till guidelines are issued. The DoP&T neither withdrew the rule provision nor suspended implementation of the provision for grant of variable increment at 4%, till the 2008 Pay Rules were replaced in 2016 after the 7th CPC recommendations were received.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 21 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 iii. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the DoP&T, vide his reply, dt.02.10.2024, specifically stated that no instructions/guidelines for grant of variable increment have been issued by the DoP&T, but to another query as to the details of circular/O.M. issued by the DoP&T or the Dept. of Expenditure of the M/o Finance instructing the Ministries and Departments of the Central Government, not to implement the provision for grant of enhanced variable increment at 4%, under Rule 9 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, the CPIO of DoP&T was silent and evasive in his answer. Even the Appellate Authority was evasive rather than giving any specific information, in his reply, dt.7.11.2024.
iv. The CPIO of the Dept. of Expenditure, in his reply No.07/02/2024- E.III.A(R.463/24)-Part 2), dt. 11.10.2024, had categorically stated that no information in material form is available with their branch, hence, the information may be treated as "Nil'. The Appellate Authority in the D.o.E, M/o Finance, also, in his reply, dt.3.1.2025, did not furnish any further elaborate reply.
v. RTI replies, both from the Dept. of Personnel & Training as well as Dept. of Expenditure, M/o Finance, and, more particularly, the DoP&T reply, dt.5.3.2025, made it clear that the provision for grant of variable increment @ 4% to high achievers in Pay Band-3, as provided for in Rule 9 of the statutory CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, was neither withdrawn nor kept in abeyance by any official circular/OM or notification and the Rule existed as it was, between 1.1.2006 and 31.12.2015, whereafter, new 7th PRC scales came into Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 22 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 force. It is also argued that there were no such instructions or rules specifying that, unless guidelines are issued separately, no statutory pay rule should be implemented. The contention of the Counsel for Respondent No.6, that this rule was not implemented in any Department, is not only immaterial but a misleading statement made for the purpose of this case, without any basis. vi. The contention of Respondents 3 to 5 that the Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the PAO, SPP, had opined that the case of granting 4% annual increment to the applicant was not in order and, that, excess payment made may be recovered, is untenable, in the light of the specific provision under Rule 9 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. This fact was ignored by the PAO, SPP, who had passed his salary bills with 4% increment, without any objection till the applicant continued to work with them.
vii. Further, Rule 13(i) of the CCS (R&P) Rules, 2008, cited and depended upon, by Respondents 3 to 5, in their counter, pertains to grant of 4% additional increment, to be computed at the time of promotion, but not at the time of grant of regular annual increment or on repatriation to the parent cadre. Hence, Rule 13(i) is not applicable in this case.
viii. The averment of Respondents 3 to 5 (Security Printing Press) in their counter, that the increment sanction order, dt.17.7.2009, did not contain the reasons for grant of higher rate of 4% increment, does not mean that there were no merits/reasons for rewarding the applicant with higher rate of increment. Definitely, on the concerned file, the Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 23 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 supporting reasons might have been recorded. In this regard, attention of this Tribunal has been drawn by the Applicant to commendation certificates (Anns.A-16 & A-17) issued to the applicant by the Respondents during the relevant period of 2008-2009. It is only for one specific year, 2009, when the increment due on 1.7.2009, was sanctioned at higher variable rate of 4% and not for all the years of the applicant's deputation period. This, by itself, speaks as to why the applicant was sanctioned higher rate of variable increment in July, 2009. Definitely, there must be some higher achievement by the applicant during that period that prompted the sanctioning authority to reward the applicant with higher rate of increment in 2009, and not error of judgment and misinterpretation of the circular (rule) in question by the Respondents.
ix. Further, till date, the increment sanction order, dt.17.7.2009, has neither been cancelled nor modified. There was also no prior show- cause notice issued to the applicant before issue of the impugned recovery proceedings by the Respondents, vide Annexures-A1 & A2. Thus, according to the applicant, since the grant of increment at higher variable rate of 4% to the applicant w.e.f. 1.7.2009 was proper and as per the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules of 2008, the respondents cannot demand recovery of Rs.13,980/- from the applicant. The matter is more than six years old since the applicant's repatriation to the parent office, on 20.9.2011, and issuance of impugned proceedings for recovery, dt.18.7.2017/16.8.2017. Further, as it is now law, as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in The State of Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 24 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334) in CA No.11527 of 2014, dt.18.12.2014, that recovery from employees would be impermissible in law when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years before the order of recovery is issued. Thus, under this simple ground, the present OA is to be allowed, setting aside the impugned recovery proceedings, dt.18.7.2017, and 16.8.2017, of Respondent No.5, declaring the same as arbitrary and illegal.
13. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material placed before us.
14. It is stated by the applicant that reasons might have been recorded on file, which the SPP has not been able to produce. The entire dispute revolves around the question as to whether grant of annual increment, due on 01.07.2009, was made correctly in the case of the applicant at higher rate of 4%, instead of the usual rate of 3%, which is granted to the Central Govt. employees. The Office Order, dt.17.07.2009, sanctioning the increment w.e.f. 01.07.2009, (Ann.A-4) reads as follows -
"SECURITY PRINTING PRESS HYDERABAD No.SPP/HOD/Annual Increment/2009/81 Date: 17.07.2009 OFFICE ORDER Sub: Annual Increment in respect of Shri P.V.Reddy, Vigilance Officer - reg.
In accordance with the provisions under the rules consequent to implementation of 6th Pay Commission Reports and its acceptance by the Government, the undersigned is pleased to grant 4% Annual Increment to Shri P.Vijaya Reddy, Vigilance Officer (an encadered officer of Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi) in pay band PB-3 and grade Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 25 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 pay of rs.5400/-. The Annual Increment will be effective from 1st July, 2009 as per rules.
(AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAV) DY. GENERAL MANAGER & HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT"
There is no mention, in the Office Order above, of "high performance" by the applicant. Even if the provision for 4% increment were to be treated as valid and applicable, it could not be granted without justification. No evidence has been provided by the S.S.P. to justify grant of increment at a higher rate vis-a-vis the increment granted to others in his cadre and pay scale. However, it is seen in the MA.152/2025, filed by the applicant, that two commendation certificates, dt.30.09.2009 and 26.01.2010, have been issued to the applicant appreciating his outstanding performance in the I.B., and devotion, skill and efficiency, in the S.P.P., respectively. Though the applicant had been working with the S.P.P. on deputation, w.e.f. 17.08.2007, the I.B. Certificate, dt. 30.09.2009 states as follows:
"Commendation By Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau Govt. of India Shri P.V.Reddy, DCIO is highly commended for the outstanding professional competence he displayed in connection with a difficult assignment during the year"
It could not apply to the services rendered by the applicant during the year 2008-09. The S.P.P. Certificate, dt. 26.01.2010 is also issued after the date of increment on 01.07.2009.
15. Payment out of public exchequer has to be made with proper justification and has to pass the test of audit under the rules. The audit objection at the SPP has been questioned as it has surfaced only after the query from the parent Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 26 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 department in 2017, although the applicant's deputation to the SPP extended from 17.08.2007 to 20.09.2011. The order of recovery is challenged but the grounds cited by the Respondents for the said recovery remain valid and cannot be overlooked. It is, however, a fact that neither the IB (the parent dept.) nor the SPP (the deputation dept.) had noticed the higher increment @ 4% on their own. It was only after scrutiny of his pay when his senior, one G.K.Balaji Rao, sought stepping up of his pay on par with the applicant, who was his junior, that the fact of higher increment sanctioned @ 4%, on 1.7.2009, came to be questioned, leading to the order of recovery of the excess payment from the applicant.
16. Admittedly, though the VI CPC had recommended 4% increment, the DoPT/Govt. of India did not issue any guidelines till 01.07.2009. Hence, the benefit of the said increment @ 4% though granted in the year 2009, was withdrawn in the year 2017, in spite of the fact that the recommendation of the VI CPC had been accepted by the Govt. of India and pay rules were also framed and issued, accordingly. Respondents' case rests on the fact that, since there were no guidelines from the DoPT, the said benefit of 4% increment, which has been granted to the applicant, while he was on deputation, has been withdrawn in the year 2017. As such, till date, the Govt. of India has not framed any guidelines nor issued any instructions to the concerned Department. Hence, the respondents are unable to implement the recommendations of the VI CPC.
17. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that, the benefit of VI CPC recommendations in respect of grant of 4% increment has been released to the applicant since the Govt. of India issued Pay Rules, following the VI CPC Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 27 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 recommendations. However, the concerned Department, relying upon the OM, dt. 03.07.2009, issued by the DoPT, calling for suggestions, have taken the stand that, till date, the DoPT has not framed or issued any guidelines in respect of release of such benefit of 4% increment. Hence, the same has been withdrawn and recovery has been ordered, vide Order, dt. 18.07.2017, which is impugned in the present OA.
18. The applicant has quoted the judgment in Rafiq Masih vs. State of Punjab, stating that if the respondents have fixed the pay on the basis of some reason, it cannot be recovered, subsequently from the officials. The bar on recovery has been prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Group C & D employees, under certain conditions. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5899 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No.30858/2011 between Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors, vide judgment, dt.17.08.2012, discussed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih in Civil Appeal No. 11527/2014, dt.18.12.2014, and held that -
"16. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "tax payers money" which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over-payment nor that of the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. Question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by Government officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment."
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 28 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017
19. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Ram Nakshtra Sharma vs. State of UP & 3 Ors., in WP.No.38790 of 2013, vide judgment, dt.19.07.2013, held that -
"Every single penny constituting consolidated fund of India/State comes from hard earned money of tax payers and others. It has to be utilised strictly in the manner in which the competent authority i.e., the legislature has resolved and decided. No amount of public exchequer can be allowed to be squandered as a matter of charity or otherwise to be retained by a Government servant who is not entitled to obtain such money but by another Government Servant has been allowed to withdraw from public exchequer, may be, by his mistake or may be collusive mistake or otherwise.
This Court also tried to find out as to from which budgetary allocation excess money was paid to the employee and to which it can be adjusted. Since the allocated money is already identified and beyond that nothing could have been paid by anybody, no authority can be allowed to retain any amount which he has received unauthorisedly or on account of mistake of administration. It shall also amount to financial indiscipline and misuse of public fund. In the context of above decisions, we are clearly of the view that various authorities cited by the representationists concerned would not help them to claim that excess amount paid should not be recovered from them." (emphasis supplied)
20. The learned counsel for the respondents was directed by us to seek instructions regarding the implementation of the Scheme for grant of performance based variable increment @ 4% instead of 3% for Group 'A' officers in PB-3, on the recommendations of 6th CPC. In response, the learned counsel for the respondents tendered OM, dt. 03.06.2024, and informed that the said Scheme has been kept in abeyance. The said OM DT. 03.06.2024, reads as under:
"2. In this regard, it is informed that suggestions were invited vide this Department's OM No.1/1/2009-Estt.Pay-1 dated 3.7.2009 regarding formulation of guidelines for grant of Variable Increment to high performers in Pay Band-3 as recommended by 6th Central Pay Commission. Thereafter, the issues involved in grant of Variable Increment to limited sections of the Central Govt. employees were examined in detail in the D/o. Personnel & Training. In light of the position analysed, it was recommended that implementation of Variable Increment may be kept in abeyance. The matter Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 29 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 was then referred to D/o. Expenditure and they agreed to the course of action proposed by DoPT.
21. Contrary to the claim of the Respondents, the applicant has alleged in MA.No.153/2025, that no such OM/Circular, dt.03.06.2024, had been issued.
The relevant portion of the MA reads thus -
"The Reply received online on 05.03.2025 (Ann.10), from the CPIO (Sri Vikas, Under Secretary, Pers. Policy-Pay), DoP&T is as under:
"W.r.t. your queries, it is informed that no such circular/OM has been issued by Pay Division, DoPT."
8. From a simple reading of all the above cited RTI Applications and Replies thereon including that of RTI Appellate authorities, it is clear that neither the Dept. of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance nor the Dept. of Personnel and Training have issued any instructions or circular O.M. informing the other Ministries and Departments of Government of India, not to grant variable increment at higher rate of 4 per cent to any officer as provided in Rule 9 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2008. It is also clear from a reading of the Item-2 query raised in Applicant's RTI Petition dated 7/8-02-2025 to DoP&T (para 7 above refers) and the reply dated 5-3-25 of CPIO, DoP&T, that there are no Rules or instructions issued by DoP&T specifying not to implement any statutory Rule provision unless separate guidelines are issued for its implementation. It is thus clear that the present OM dated 03.06.2024 (issued by DoP&T without any file number), seems to have been made only for the purpose of this case. Hence the same ought not to be taken into consideration and is to be ignored."
22. Having gone through the submissions of both the parties, it is clear that the so-called excess payment on account of increment given by the SPP from 01.07.2009 @ 4%, in place of the usual 3% being given to Central Govt.
employees, was not noticed by the SPP/PAO in the year 2009 nor was it pointed out when the applicant came and reported back from deputation in the I.B. in the year 2011. Until the issue was raked up by Sri G.K.Balaji Rao, who was senior to the applicant, both R6 and R4, i.e., SIB/MHA and SPP/SPMCIL, were Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 30 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 oblivious of irregular/excess payment, if any. At that belated stage in July, 2017, the Pay and Accounts Office of the SPP also found fault with grant of variable increment at higher rate. The most intriguing part is that so-called DoPT OM, dt.03.06.2024, which was produced on behalf of the Respondents, stating that the provision for enhanced increment @ 4% had been kept in abeyance, has been disowned by the CPIO, DoPT, while replying under the RTI Act, as pointed out in M.A.153/2025 supra, despite some discussion over this issue as seen from the note sheets of the MHA furnished by the Respondents.
23. There is no doubt that the Government is well within its rights to correct a bonafide mistake, as fixing of increment/pay/pension has to be done across the cadre and must be governed by the rules issued by the Competent Authority.
There are clearly no express orders from the Competent Authority(DoPT) in the present instance for fixing payment of increment at enhanced rate of 4%. The Commendation Certificates cannot be accepted as justification for one-time sanction of increment @ 4% to the applicant as there is no mention at all of any higher performance in the office order, dt. 17.07.2009, sanctioning the increment at the enhanced rate of 4%. Accordingly, Respondents are justified in refixing the pay/pension of the applicant, as per rules, having noticed the anomaly.
24. Coming to the issue of recovery of the excess amounts as worked out by the Respondents, admittedly, the mess has been created by the respondent departments themselves. The deviation from the usual increment was detected and rectified after over 7 years in November, 2016, only after the representation of the applicant's senior was received. For grant of the enhanced increment @ Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 31 OA.Nos.785/2017 & 58/2017 4%, as well as for the overpayment, the applicant cannot be held liable. He has also retired, in the meantime. Recovery by R5 & R6, at this stage, is bound to cause hardship to the applicant who has attained the age of 65 years. Therefore, on the ground of equity, it is not considered to be permissible. The Impugned Orders, dt. 18.01.2017, 18.07.2017 & 16.08.2017, to the extent of recovery of excess payment from the applicant, are quashed and set aside.
25. The OAs are disposed of in the above terms. Interim Orders, dt.18.09.2017, granted in OA.No.785/2017, and, dt.30.01.2017 & 01.05.2017, granted in OA.No.58/2017, to the extent of stay on recovery of excess payment, if any, are made absolute. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
28.01.2026
/ps/Ram/
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRL
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a APALLI 8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 17:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0