Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Sunny Soni vs Social Statistics Division on 11 March, 2026
OA No. 900 of 2023
(Open Court)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad, this the 11th day of March, 2026.
Original Application No. 900 of 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)
Sunny Soni, aged about 41 years, Son of Shri Ram Shankar Soni, Resident
of D-443, Vaidehi Nagar Colony, Sahab Ganj, Ayodhya. At present posted
as Senior Statistical Officer at Ayodhya.
.......Applicant.
By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Statistics and
Program Implementation, Department of National Sample Survey
office, Field Operation Division, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Sansad
Marg, New Delhi.
2. Joint Director (SSS), Government of India, Ministry of Statistics and
Program Implementation, Subordinate Statistical Service Division,
Room No. 528, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
3. Deputy Director General, National Sample Survey Office, Field
Operation Division, Region Office, 38A, Sardar Patel Marg, Civil
Lines, Allahabad.
....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):
Shri Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :
(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 22.09.2023 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure No.A-1 of the Original Application).
(ii) This Hon'ble may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents refund the amount recovered from the salary of the applicant along with admissible interest thereupon.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 1 of 7 OA No. 900 of 2023
(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
(iv) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant."
3. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the applicant are that In 2006, the Staff Selection Commission advertised vacancies for different posts. The applicant applied, appeared in the written test and interview, and was selected for the post of Junior Statistical Investigator. After completing training at Lucknow, he was posted at the National Sample Survey Office in Aligarh. Later, in the Combined Graduate Level Examination-2008 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission, the applicant was selected as Inspector in the Central Board of Excise and Customs and joined the post after obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, while keeping lien in his parent department for two years. However, due to personal difficulties in Mumbai, he resigned from the Inspector post and rejoined his parent department as Junior Statistical Investigator at the National Sample Survey Office in Faizabad on 16.05.2011, where his pay was fixed by the department. He was later promoted as Senior Statistical Investigator on 17.08.2015. After many years of service, the department issued a letter dated 22.09.2023 directing recovery of Rs. 11,37,852/- from the salary of the applicant in 56 installments. Despite several representations given by the applicant citing government instructions that excess payment made due to departmental mistake should not be recovered from an employee, the authorities did not consider his request,. Hence, this OA.
4. The respondents have strongly refuted the contention of the applicant by filing the counter reply and have submitted that relieving order on promotion was issued on 17.08.2015, but pay was fixed from the date of RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 2 of 7 OA No. 900 of 2023 joining in the new post of posting w.e.f. 07.09.2015. It is submitted that recovery of Rs. 20500 made in the month of September 2023 i.e. first instalment of recovery and not Rs. 10352. Recovery order was intimated on the same day (22.09.2023) i.e. date of issue of Recovery Order. There is no provision for issuing SCN to the employee before recovery. It is submitted that there is no clear cut definition of law paid employee. Post re-fixation of pay of the applicant, gross amount of pay in the M/o November 2023 is Rs. 99038/- and net pay post incorporating recovery of Excess Pay drawn and other mandatory deductions is Rs. 62076/- and issue of ill health of his father has no relevance with the recovery. It is further submitted that only one representation was made by the applicant at inappropriate time i.e. 31.08.2023 and received in the office of respondents on 08.09.2023. This act shows that the applicant was well informed with the fact that he was drawing wrong pay since past. It is submitted that, the applicant has already withdrawn amount of Rs. 1137852/- over the years which was not his due. Only the excess amount drawn which is actually Government money is recovered. This is also to mention that the applicant has earned bank interest on the excess payment over the years. The respondents received no directions from audit authorities to recover penal interest on the excess payment. It is also submitted that the applicant is categorized under Group B service. It is submitted that, at the time when pay anomaly occurred i.e. 16.05.2011, employee was Group B, Non-Gazetted and w.e.f. 07.09.2015, employee is Group B, Gazetted. On the basis of above discussion, the respondents have submitted that the relief claimed by the applicant is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the OA should also be dismissed.
5. In rejoinder affidavit, the applicant has reiterated the similar facts as given in the OA and added that order of promotion to applicant was issued RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 3 of 7 OA No. 900 of 2023 on 17.08.2015 but the department itself fixed the pay with effect from date of joining a.e. 07.09.2015 but the respondent authorities started recovery from the pay of applicant with effect from 16.05.2011 without any reason. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble High Court has given their judgment in which they have specifically held that no recovery can be made from employee provided there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of employee. Recovery from employee when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years before the order of recovery is issued, the recovery is impermissible.
6. Heard the rival submissions of the parties counsel and verified the documents available on record.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has mainly relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs Rafiq Masih (white washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 4 of 7 OA No. 900 of 2023 harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
8. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied on the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Sarojbala Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & ors. in Writ-A No.10699 of 2020 decided on 07.01.2021. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as below :-
"12. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly suggests that principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih's case that recovery from employee belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group C and Group D service) would be impermissible in law, still holds good. In the subsequent judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in High Court of Punjab and haryana and others v. Jagdev Singh's case (supra), it has only clarified that recovery from those retired employees or who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery shall be permissible who had given undertaking at the time of taking benefit that any payment, if found in excess would be liable to adjusted.
13. In the present case, it is not in dispute that petitioner is a Class-III employee coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a retired employee and at no point of time she had given any undertaking making her liable for recovery. Though, the respondents have stated in their reply that the petitioner had given an undertaking, copy of which has been produced before the court along with instructions received by the learned Standing Counsel (copy of which has been placed on record) but on perusal of the same, it no where reflects any date as to when the said undertaking was filed; meaning thereby that the same has been filed at the time of fixation of pay-scale of the petitioner or the same has been filed at the time of retirement from service, as such, this Court has reason to disbelieve the stand taken by the respondents. Otherwise also, petitioner, who is a Class-in employee and a retired employee, cannot be compelled to refund the excess amount which has been paid by the respondents of its own, without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, the period, for which allegedly wrong pay scale was drawn by the petitioner is from 12.08.1999 up to her retirement, as such, the recovery proceedings initiated in the year 2020 are highly belated. There is no allegation that the pay fixation was due to the collusion with anybody. Moreover, the undertaking, if any, relied upon by the respondents cannot be said to be an undertaking of pay fixation at this belated stage, benefit of which was given in the year 1999.
14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.6.2020 passed by the respondent No. 2 and its consequential order dated 7.7.2020 passed by the respondent No. 4 cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed
15. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.6.2020 passed by the respondent No. 2 and its consequential order dated 7.7.2020 passed by the respondent No. 4 are hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to release entire post retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of two months, failing which petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the amount from the date of superannuation till its actual payment. It is also made clear that in case, the respondents have recovered the amount of Rs. 3,06,113/- from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 5 of 7 OA No. 900 of 2023 to the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from today."
9. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied on the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Ajay Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & ors. in Writ Petition No.26672 of 2016 decided on 17.11.2017. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as below :-
"Thus as to the recovery of the excess amount, it is seen that the amount had been paid to the petitioner not on account of any fraud, collusion or misrepresentation by the petitioner but on account of his claim being considered and allowed by the bank. That being an action of the bank it is not open to the bank to turn around and seek recovery of that amount from the petitioner as such payment can never be said to have been received by the petitioner for any reason other than authorization made by the bank itself. However, in view of the fact that some recoveries have already been made in pursuance of the impugned order, by way of monthly deduction from the salary being paid out to the petitioner, it is provided that no further recovery shall be made from the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order. However, recoveries that may have already been made may also be not reversed inasmuch as on merits it has been found that the petitioner was not entitled for that amount."
10. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied on the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Janardan Prasad Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & ors. in Writ Petition No.37527 of 2008 decided on 19.01.2011. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as below :-
"7. Moreover, the amount paid in excess to the petitioner is not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. If there is any error or mistake committed by the respondents, they may rectify the same but, in any case, cannot recover the alleged excess amount, already paid to the petitioner, since the same has already been consumed in catering to the need of himself and his family members. Moreover, in view of the law laid down in B.N. Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 1979 ALJ 1184; Shyam Babu Verma and another v. Union of India and others, 1994 (2) SCC 521; Gabriel Saver Fernandes and others v. State of Karnataka and others, 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 149; Mahmood Hasan v. State of U.P., JT 1997 (1) SC 353; State of Karnataka and another v. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees' Association and others, 2002 (3) SCC 302; Surya Deo Mishra v. State of U.P., 2006(1) ADJ 467 (FB); Purushottam Lal Das and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2006(10) SCALE 1999, such amount cannot be recovered."
11. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present case is squarely covered under para 12 (iii) of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 6 of 7 OA No. 900 of 2023 Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) as well as judgment quoted in para No. 8, 9 and 10 above. The higher pay fixation was done by the respondents and recovery order has been passed after a long time more than 10 years. It is not the case of the respondents that applicant got his pay fixed by misrepresenting the facts.
12. The action of the respondents in recovering the alleged excess payment from the applicant is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. Order dated 22.09.2023 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered with existing Bank rate of interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The interim order granted earlier is merged with this order. No order as to costs.
13. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
(Mohan Pyare) Member(Administrative) RKM/ RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 7 of 7