Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Rankanidhi Gouda vs Indian Council Of Medical Research on 21 January, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/00346 of 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00346 of 2024
Reserved on 15.01.2026 Pronounced on 21.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Shri Rankanidhi Gouda, aged about 66 years,
son of Late Shri Choudhury Gouda, Retd. as
Insect Collector, ICMR and permanent resident
of At- 3rd Lane, Khatei Colony, PO- Konisi, PS-
golanthara, Dist. - Ganjam, At present residing
at Qrt. No. F-32, Unit-7, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through the
Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
At- Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, PIN-110001.
2. Director General & Secretary, Department of
Health Research, Indian Council of Medical
Research, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, PIN-
110029.
3. Director, National Institute of Malaria Research,
Sector-8, Dwaraka, New Delhi, PIN-110077.
4. Administrative Officer, National Institute of
Malaria Research, Sector-8, Dwaraka, New
Delhi. PIN-110077.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. D.K.Patnaik, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.01.21
15:55:57 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00346 of 2024
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The applicant, Sri Rankanidhi Gouda, while working as Insect Collector in ICMR, retired from service on 30.04.2018 on reaching the age of superannuation. An amount of Rs. 2,60,471/-
was withheld from his DCRG on the ground that he while working at Rourkela under the ICMR occupied quarters of SAIL from 03.08.2006 to 14.05.2018 and, at the same time drew HRA from ICMR which is contrary to Rules. According to the Applicant, such withholding of Rs. 2,60,471/- from his DCRG drives him into starvation due to financial difficulties and, that drawal of HRA from ICMR cannot be faulted with when he was paying the necessary rent and other allied charges to the SAIL authority as per the agreement made with him with the SAIL.
2. The respondents have filed their counter objecting the very maintainability and sustainability of the OA being hit by law of limitation provided u/s. 21 of the A.T. Act, 1985 as also stating that they have not recovered the said amount from the DCRG of the applicant rather they withheld the same awaiting final RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:55:57 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00346 of 2024 decision of the competent authority in respect of many employees including the present applicant. It has been stated that justifiability or otherwise of making recovery for drawl of HRA while in occupation of the quarters owned and provided by the SAIL came up for judicial scrutiny before this Bench in OA No 542/2020 (Gopal Krushna padhi Vs ICMR) and this Bench vide order dated 17.11.2023 did not incline to interfere on the recovery and, accordingly, the OA was dismissed. It is stated that the present case being one and the same, is liable to be dismissed.
3. Heard. Perused the records.
4. We find that there is no need for elaboration discussion and deliberation of the facts and issues involved in the present case; since in similar matter i.e. OA No. 349/2024 (Durga Madhab Padhi vs UOI & Ors) wherein this Bench after dealing with all the points raised by the Respondents, allowed the OA vide order dated 21.01.2026, relevant portion of the order is quoted below:
RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:55:57 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00346 of 2024 "3. ............Hence, according to him, there is no delay and, in argumendo, even if there is any delay, this being a recurring cause of action, delay should not stand on the way for the relief, unlike the present case, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.R.Gupta Vs UOI & Ors, 1996 AIR 669. We have examined the matter, keeping in mind the facts and law stated above, and do not find any merit to uphold the stand point of the respondents that this OA being hit by limitation is liable to be dismissed.
4. After hearing Ld. Counsel for the parties, we have perused the records.
5. In the given circumstances stated above vis a vis the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.R.Gupta Vs UOI & Ors, 1996 AIR 669, we do not find any force on the stand of the respondents to hold that the OA is hit by law of limitation, hence, this objection of the respondents is overruled.
6. It is a settled principle of law that when the employer is an entity under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, which have to conduct themselves as a model employer vide Bhupendranath Hazarika Vs State of Assam, 2013 AIR (SC) 234. The DoP&T taking into consideration the decision in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, issued exhaustive guidelines vide OM dated 02.03.2016 on recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government servants. In the instant case, the applicant retired on 31.05.2019. He was communicated the office order showing the recovery on 31.07.2019. Respondents filed their counter on 25.09.2024 stating therein that they have not recovered any amount from the retiral dues of the applicant but withheld the same awaiting final decision of the competent authority without stating who is the competent authority to take a decision when counter has also been filed on behalf of RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:55:57 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00346 of 2024 Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi. Hence, this submission of the respondents is held to be an arbitrary action on their part.
7. According to Ld. Counsel for the applicant, withholding of amount from the DCRG of the applicant is bad in law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors Vs The Dist. Judge Cuttack and others, 2025 INSC 449.
We have gone through the said decision and we find that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case, after taking note of the decisions in the cases of State of Punjab and Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) & Ors, (2015) 4 SCC 34, and Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 INSC 498, fixed yardsticks where recovery, even if not due but paid to an employee, is impermissible. The relevant portion of the decision in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo (supra) reads as under:
"18. 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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the 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 RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:55:57 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00346 of 2024 rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
8. The respondents in their counter so also in hearing have put/laid much more emphasis on the earlier decision of this case in the case of Gopal Krushna Padhi (supra). According to them, the said case is akin to the case in hand and the same having been dismissed by this Bench, which has not been reversed by any higher forum, the OA is liable to be dismissed. We find that the order in OA No. 542/2020 was dismissed by the Single Bench. Although, in the aforesaid case, recovery was made for same cause but from the salary of the applicant as he was in service and not from the DCRG amount as in the instant OA. The applicant has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 19.02.2004 in W.Ps. No. 31014-31023 of 2023 (S-CAT) [B H AMAR Venkatesh & Ors Vs Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices & Ors.] wherein in similar situation, it was held that an employee is entitled to HRA in the event quarters is not allotted under the Allotment of Govt. Residences (General Pool) Rules and in the event allotment of quarters under the above rules, the employee is liable to pay License Fee in accordance with SR-317-B-12(1). What shall be License Fee of the quarters has to be determined as per annexure-I appended to FR 45(A). In the case, the applicant was paying the rent and other allied charges as per the agreement executed with the SAIL. Therefore, according to the present applicant, the OA No. 542/2020 having been decided by the Single Bench without taking note of the decision in the case of B H AMAR Venkatesh & Ors (supra), facts noted above, and the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jogeswar RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:55:57 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00346 of 2024 Sahoo (supra), the decision in OA No. 542/2020 has no application for allowing the present OA. Law of precedent requires that similar matter to be decided in similar line provided that the facts in both the cases are not distinguishable [Ref. Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs M/S Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr, AIR 2002 SC 834]. As discussed above, it makes clear that the decision of the Single Bench in OA No. 542/2020 has no application to the present case since, according to the respondents, they have not recovered the amount but withheld the same from DCRG of the applicant awaiting the final decision of the competent authority and that the said decision was rendered without taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B H AMAR Venkatesh & Ors (supra) and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jogeshwar Sahoo (supra). Since, meanwhile, near about three years already expired, granting further time to the Respondents to take decision would be nothing but iniquitous, harsh and perpetuation of financial difficulties against the applicant; when his case squarely comes/falls within the ingredients fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) of the Jogeshwar Sahoo (supra). In the said premises, we direct the Respondents to refund the amount of Rs.
4,66,553/-, withheld from the DCRG of the applicant, within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. At the same time, we refrain from passing any order for payment of any interest since the withholding of amount from DCRG cannot be said to be intentional or deliberate on the part of the respondents but for the reasons discussed above. However, we make it clear that in the event the amount is not paid to the applicant within the period stated above, the applicant shall be entitled to 12% interest per annum from the day one of expiry of sixty days till actual payable, which shall RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:55:57 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00346 of 2024 be recoverable from the officer/official responsible for the delay instead of bearing the excess payment towards interest from Govt. exchequer."
5. In view of the above, we see no such distinguished feature in the present case so as to take a different view than the view already taken in the above case. In this case we also find that the grievance of the applicant falls within the ingredients fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) of the Jogeshwar Sahoo (supra) and, therefore, withholding of Rs. Rs.
2,60,471/- from the DCRG of the applicant is held to be bad in law. As a consequence, the Respondents are directed to refund the withheld amount of Rs. 2,60,471/- to the applicant within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, we refrain from passing any order for payment of any interest since the withholding of amount from DCRG cannot be said to be intentional or deliberate on the part of the respondents but for the reasons discussed above. However, we make it clear that in the event the amount is not paid to the applicant within the period stated above, the applicant shall be entitled to 12% interest per annum from the day one of expiry of RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:55:57 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00346 of 2024 sixty days till actual payable, which shall be recoverable from the officer/official responsible for the delay instead of bearing the excess payment towards interest from Govt. exchequer.
6. In the result, this OA stands allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.01.21
15:55:57 +05'30'