Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Bidhan Chanda vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 8 August, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application Nos. 040/00098/2020
Date of order: This, the 08th day of August 2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Bidhan Chanda
Son of Late Satya Ranjan Chanda
Doordarshan Kendra, R.G. Baruah Road
Guwahati-781024.
...Applicant
By Advocates: Sri M. Chanda & Smt. U. Dutta
- Versus -
1. The Union of India
Through the Secretary to the Govt. of India
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
New Delhi - 110015.
2. The Director General
Doordarshan Directorate
Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg
New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Director General
All India Radio, Akashvani Bhawan
Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001.
4. The Additional Director General (P&A), NER
Doordarshan, R.G. Baruah Road
Guwahati-781024, Assam.
PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA
BASUMATARY
BASUMATARY
O.A. No./98/2020
2
5. The Head of Office
Doordarshan Kendra, Guwahati
R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati-781024, Assam.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Sri V.K. Bhatra, Sr. CGSC
Date of Hearing: 23.06.2025 Date of Order: 08.08.2025
ORDER
PER MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):
Smt. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this application is made against the impugned order of excess recovery dated 20.06.2018, 13.06.2019, 27.01.2020 and impugned order dated 20.02.2020, issued by Doordarshan Kendra Guwahati, whereby an excess amount to the tune of Rs. 7,83,484/-, excluding other allowance like DA, SDA & HRA etc. is sought to be recovered from the applicant for the period from 01.01.2006 to 01.06.2018. At the time of filing the instant O.A., applicant was working as Stenographer Grade-1 in the Office of the Doordarshan Kendra Guwahati. It is pertinent to mention here that the alleged PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 3 recovery of Rs. 7,83,484/- is sought to be recovered on the alleged ground of wrong fixation of pay carried out in compliance with the instructions contained in DG AIR letter bearing no. A-26022/02/2012-S.II/1328 to 1330 dated 03/04-10-2012, which was implemented by the local Head of Office i.e. Programme Executive (DDO) Doordarshan Guwahati vide Order bearing letter no. PPC(NE)/DD/GUW/10(3)/2012-S/3689 dated 10.01.2013, and also on account of wrong fixation of pay carried out following introduction of CCS (Revised Pay Rules) 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in respect of the present applicant by the Director PPC (NE) Doordarshan Guwahati. The applicant has no hand or involvement in carrying out the so called wrong fixation of pay on account of introduction of CCS (Revised Pay Rules) 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and also on account of wrong instruction contained in DG AIR letter dated 03/04.10.2012.
2. Learned counsel submitted that additional one increment, which was alleged to have been granted to PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 4 the applicant on account of stepping up of pay at par with his junior in fact the said increment also had withdrawn from 01.07.2018, by reducing and re-fixing his pay following Audit Objection. However, it is to be noted here at this stage that the applicant actually submitted his application dated 05.02.2009 for equating his pay at par with his junior Shri A.K. Barbhuyan, Stenographer Grade-I, but the benefit of the option given by the applicant pursuant to the OM bearing letter no. F No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 29.01.2009, issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. Be it stated that the said option of the applicant is given within the stipulated period of one month as per OM dated 29.01.2009 but it is alleged that the applicant has not furnished any option for such stepping up of pay from reliable source and therefore benefit of stepping up has been withdrawn w.e.f. 01.07.2018 in an arbitrary manner inspite of submission of application dated 05.02.2009. But surprisingly the alleged excess payment both on account PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 5 of wrong fixation of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006, on introduction of CCS (Revised Pay Rules) 2008, and also on account of alleged re-fixation of pay, an amount of Rs. 7,83,484/- is now sought to be recovered from the applicant. It is also alleged that the stepping up of pay of the applicant with his junior A. K. Barbhuyan, Stenographer Grade-I, has also been wrongly carried out in the absence of any option from the applicant which resulted alleged excess payment of Rs. 7,83,484/- vide impugned order dated 20.06.2018, impugned memo dated 13.06.2019, impugned order dated 27.01.2020 and impugned memo dated 20.02.2020. Be it stated that before issuing the impugned orders/memo's as stated herein above for recovery of alleged excess amount of Rs. 7,83,484/-, no show-cause notice has been issued to the applicant and thereby denied reasonable opportunity of being heard and also violated the principle of natural justice. Therefore, huge financial loss has been incurred by the applicant each and every month from the date of PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 6 withdrawal of the benefit of additional increment which was granted by way of stepping up of pay to the applicant at par with his juniors mentioned herein above.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had submitted as many as three (3) consecutive representations dated 21.06.2018, 17.06.2019 and 30.01.2020, praying for recalculation of the arrear recovery and also not to recover the excess amount of Rs. 7,83,484/-. As per the learned counsel, recovery statement as shown vide order dated 20.06.2018 was actually not drawn by the petitioner but the respondents authority in a most arbitrary and illegal manner seeking recovery of Rs. 7,83,484/- from the present applicant without proper calculation and deliberately ignoring the due and drawn statement declared by the appropriate authority of the respondent department in favour of the present applicant.
4. According to the learned counsel, applicant did not draw any arrear salary on account of fixation of his PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 7 pay due to introduction of CCS (Revised) Pay rules 2008, which was given effect w.e.f. 01.01.2006, but no arrear given for the period from 01.01.2006 to March 2013. The alleged excess drawl on account of wrong fixation of pay in fact started from April 2013, but the recovery is now sought to be made w.e.f. 01.01.2006 on account of re-fixation of pay, which is quite illegal and following wrong instruction of the Audit Party without even verification of the fact that no arrear paid to the applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to March 2013 although fixation was carried out w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as indicated in the statement of pay fixation. Therefore, internal audit party headed by Shri R Kannan, PAO, internal Audit is highly responsible for wrong calculation of alleged excess payment. Therefore, the impugned order/memo dated 20.06.2018, 13.06.2019, 27.01.2020 and impugned order dated 20.02.2020 are liable to be set aside and quashed with exemplary cost.
PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 8
5. It is well settled in law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court that in the absence of any misrepresentation of fact and fraud, if excess payment is made on account of wrong fixation of pay due to administrative error or lapses the same cannot be recovered from the Government employee concerned as laid down in the decision rendered by the Honourble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs Rafiq Masish reported in 2015 (4)SCC354, as such impugned orders of recovery are liable to set aside and quashed in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the instant case.
6. Per contra, Sri V.K. Bhatra, learned Sr. CGSC for the respondents submitted that Internal Audit Party, East Zone, Kolkata had visited PPC (NE), DD, Guwahati in May, 2018 for inspection of Accounts for the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2017 and while inspection of Records Audit Team had objected Pay Fixation in respect of the applicant, Stenographer (Jr.) and as per their letter PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 9 dated 02.05.2018, pay of the applicant was fixed as Rs. 4000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in the Pay Scale of Rs. 4000-100- 6000 and later on it was stepped up with reference to his junior Shri Aswini Kumar and fixed his pay @ Rs. 4100/- w.e.f. 02.01.1996. As per Sri Bhatra, applicant got 1st ACP on 06.10.2005 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 5150/- in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000. On 01.01.2006, his pay was Rs. 5150/- in 5th CPC, which was wrongly fixed as Rs. 12460+4200 (GP) at the time of allowing 6th CPC instead of Rs. 9580+4200 (GP) and an amount of Rs. 7,83,484/- including Pay/DA/HRA/SDA had been paid in excess w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2017.
7. In compliance of the Audit observation under Para No. 2 communicated by the Chief Controller of Accounts, Internal Audit Party, Kolkata issued an Order dated 20.06.2018 for recovery of Rs. 7,83,484/- as excess drawn Pay & Allowances from the applicant. As per Audit observation, the then official AO/HC/Accountant had not prepared any due drawn statement of Pay for an PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 10 amount of Rs. 7,83,484/- nor any verification had been made from the Pay Bill Register. In the meantime, another Memo dated 13.06.2019 had been issued to the applicant to recover Rs. 7,83,484/- from him. Again, another Order dated 27.01.2020 was issued by the Office to recover Rs. 7,83,484/- from the applicant w.e.f. February 2020 onwards as per Audit Para-2(1) but neither recovery had been made nor authentication of the said amount was verified from record. Thereafter, DDK, Guwahati had issued one more Memo dated 20.02.2020 to the applicant to recovery excess Pay & Allowance for an amount of Rs. 7,83,484/-. Applicant had submitted explanation to drop the Para, which was not accepted by Internal Audit Wing, Kolkata, and when he was asked to recover the amount of Rs. 7,83,484/- from the month of February, 2020, he had approached this Tribunal by way of filing the instant O.A. to stop further recovery from his salary wherein this Tribunal vide Order dated 05.05.2020 directed the respondents to recover an amount of Rs. PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 11 7,83,484/- from the applicant as per impugned Orders dated 13.06.2019, 27.01.2020, 20.02.2020, 31.08.2020 and till any decision is drawn by this Tribunal in its final judgment.
8. As per the learned Sr. CGSC, on account of wrong fixation of pay, which was continued for a period of nearly 8 years, the Department has the right to recover the same from the applicant's Pay and Gratuity. In any form of wrong fixation of pay during the service period, excess will be recovered by the Department with Undertaking of Government Servant and as per Rules. Excess/difference of Pay in respect of the Applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2006 had been re-worked out to be a sum of Rs. 3,39,107 instead of Rs. 3,27,330/- only, which had been verified from the records and confirmed by due drawn statement. Therefore, excess amount of Rs. 3,39,107/- instead of Rs. 3,27,330/- only received by the applicant was to be recovered during the period of his service. Applicant had joined the Department on 06.10.1993 and PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 12 Shri A.K. Borbhuyan, Steno had joined the Department on 29.10.1993 (i.e. in the same month), and one additional increment was given to the applicant while fixing his pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 at par with his junior without any verification and later on when detected by the Audit Department, it was required to be recovered from the applicant. As per Service Rules and records, applicant's 1st ACP was due on 06.10.2005 in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- but the benefit of ACP was granted w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and additional benefit of one increment granted to the applicant was later on withdrawn after a lapse of 09 years on the ground of anomalies.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and scrutinized all the documents produced by them.
10. It is admitted by both the parties that excess amount to the tune of Rs. 7,83,484/- was granted to the applicant on account of wrong fixation of Pay Scale committed on the part of the respondents. PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 13
11. Now, the question to be decided by this Tribunal in this case is as to whether the action of respondents of recovering excess payment made to the applicant from his salary after a lapse of 09 years on the ground of alleged wrong fixation/anomalies is permissible or not.
12. With regard to recovery aspect, the law is well settled law that if employees belonging to Group 'C' is granted some financial benefits, by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, the Government cannot recover the same unless there exists any element of fraud. It is also well settled law that in case excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, the same could not be recovered.
13. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) AIR 2015 SC 696, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the validity of an order passed by the PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 14 State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiary employees in excess of their entitlements without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. The Hon'ble Court considered situations of hardship caused to an employee, if recovery is directed to reimburse the employer and disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery. It was held thus:-
"8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover."
14. In para 18, it was further held that it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 15 have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also summarized the 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 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 harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
15. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala & Others 2022 Live Law (SC) 438 by observing that relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 16 hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. Particularly, when an employee had no role for the excess payment made to him by the employer.
16. So far as the re-fixation aspect is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of titled Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 1635 of 2013) dated 08.08.2024 has held that State Government cannot retrospectively reduce an employee's pay scale and recover excess amount if the payment had been made for a long duration of time. The relevant portion of the judgement is quoted below:-
"21. We firmly believe that any decision taken by the State Government to reduce an employee's pay scale and recover the excess amount cannot be applied retrospectively and that too after a long time gap. In the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others, this Court held that when the excess unauthorized payment is detected within a short period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the payment had been made for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery..."
17. In the instant case, the respondent authorities in their written statement have admitted that applicant got PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 17 1st ACP on 06.10.2005 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 5150/- in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5000-150-80000. On 01.01.2006, applicant's pay was Rs. 5150/- in 5th CPC which was wrongly fixed as Rs. 12460+4200 (GP) at the time of allowing 6th CPC instead of Rs. 9580+4200 (GP) and an amount of Rs. 7,83,484/- including Pay/DA/HRA/SDA had been paid in excess w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2017. They also admitted that wrong fixation of pay in respect of the applicant was done by them and continued for a period of nearly 8 years. They further admitted that benefit of ACP was granted to the applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and additional benefit of one increment granted to the applicant was later on withdrawn after a lapse of 09 years on the ground of anomalies.
18. Going by the above, it is established that the respondent authorities have erred in not properly fixing the pay of the applicant, which resulted into excess payment of Rs. 3,39,107/- and anomalies detected by the respondents was withdrawn after a lapse of 09 years, PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 18 which in our considered opinion, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
19. As already held, it is admitted position that excess payment was made due to wrong fixation of pay scale by the respondents. Even though the recovery is not permissible in view of the law laid down in Rafique Masih (supra), the erroneous pay fixation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely even after the error is detected. As the excess payment pertains for a period in excess of five years, the case of the applicant will be covered by para 18(iii) of the said decision. In the case of Shyam Babu Verma vs Union of India, 1994 SCC (2) 521, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the re-fixation of pay reducing the pay of the applicants therein, being not admissible, but only interfered with the recovery from them. In the case of Amarendra Nath Purkait vs State of West Bengal & Ors (W. P. No. 9858 (W) of 2011) decided on 9 September, 2011, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held as under:-
PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 19 "Re: Payment of Pensionary Relief. This Court is of the view that though in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyambabu Varma Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), recovery of the excess payment made to the petitioner due to wrong pay fixation by the concerned authority in which the petitioner had no fraudulent role to play, is not permissible after his retirement out of his retiral dues, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has not held that the concerned authority is required to go on paying the current pensionary relief on the basis of the last drawn salary which was not admissible to him as per the law.
This Court, thus, holds that though recovery of the excess payment from the retired person from his retiral dues is not permissible, but the retired person cannot claim the pensionary relief for the current months on the basis of his last drawn salary which, in fact, was not admissible to him on the date of his retirement.
(emphasis supplied) In this case also, the applicant cannot be allowed to continue to enjoy the benefit which were not admissible to him. Once the erroneous pay fixation is detected, it must be rectified. In the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that State cannot reduce the pay of the employee retrospectively.
Therefore, in the present case, refixation of pay from the due date shall be carried out by the respondents without PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY BASUMATARY O.A. No./98/2020 20 effecting any recovery, which will tantamount to re- fixation of pay prospectively.
20. In view of the forgoing reasons, respondents are directed not to effect any recovery from the applicant arising out of re-fixation of his pay. However, the re-fixation of his pay is held to be valid requiring no interference of this Tribunal.
21. The OA is disposed of as above.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/PB/BB/
PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA
BASUMATARY
BASUMATARY
O.A. No./98/2020