Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Dr P Venugopal Sarma vs Icar on 27 March, 2024
1
OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00435/2022
ORDER RESERVED ON: 19.02.2024
DATE OF ORDER: 27.03.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Dr. P Venugopal Sarma
S/o P.R.K Sharma
Aged about 80 years
Retd Principal Scientist
National Institute of Animal
Nutrition & Physiology, Adugodi
Bengaluru, Now Residing at No. 2458,
14th A Cross, 25th A Main
HSR Layout Sector I,
Bengaluru - 560 102 ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Ranganatha S. Jois)
Vs.
1. The Union of India
Rep by its Secretary
Indian Council for Agricultural Research
Krishi Bhavan
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Union of India
Rep by Secretary
Department of Personal
(PG & Pension)
3rd Floor, Lokanayak Bhavan
Khan Market
New Delhi 110003.
3. The Director
National Institute of Animal
Nutrition & Physiology,
Adugodi, Bengaluru-560 030.
2
OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
4. The Senior Accounts Officer
Indian Institute of Horticultural Research,
Hesarghatta Lake Post
Bengaluru - 560089 ...Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Sr. Panel Counsel)
ORDER
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
a) To call for relevant records relating to the representations made by the applicant in pursuance of the office order dated 15/23.03.2022 vide Annexure-A4 and grant to the applicant the revised pension from 1.4.2002 onwards till date along with the revisions as made from time to time by issuing an order of revised pension, and pay the arrears along with interest at 12% per annum.
b) To call for the records relating to the impugned order bearing No: F. No. NIANP/Estt/Sci/5-1/II/436 dated 02.08.2023 passed by the 3rd Respondent vide Annexure-A13, peruse and quash the said order seeking to cancel the advance increments and also directing recovery from the applicant as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 (1) and 311 of the constitution of India as also the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of 'Rafiq Masih'. 3
OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
c) Issue any other consequential directions or orders as this Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:
a) The applicant is a retired Principal Scientist of National Institute of Animal Nutrition & Physiology, Adugodi, Bengaluru coming under the purview of the 1st Respondent - ICAR. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2002. He was entitled for grant of two advance increments in pursuance of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ICAR Vs B. Sasikumar & ors for which a circular was issued by the ICAR on 20.09.2020.
b) The applicant having the required PhD degree, was entitled for the advance increments for which he submitted a representation on 30.10.2020 (Annexure-A2) and 24.09.2021 (Annexure-A3).
Consequently, an order for fixing his pension was issued on 15/23.03.2022 (Annexure-A4) granting him two advance increments of Rs. 450/- each, from 27.7.1998, and consequently fixing his Pay as on the date of the retirement (31.3.2002) as Rs. 19550/- + NPA of Rs.4888/- .
c) Thereafter, though the applicant was granted the advance increments and revised pay, revision of his pension from 2002 till date has not been done. He is entitled for revised arrears of pension from 2002 to 2022. He is also entitled for interest on the said amount.
4
OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
d) The applicant has addressed periodical reminders to expedite his case.
On the said representation, the local office at Adugodi addressed a letter on 12.07.2022 (Annexure-A6) stating that the revision is in process and once it is completed it will be granted. However, till date the revised pension payment order has not been granted and arrears of pension from 2002 to 2022 has not been granted to the applicant.
e) In the case of similarly situated persons like the applicant, working under the different institution of the Research Institute of Union of India, revised Office Orders dated 06.11.2020 (Annexuxre-A7), 26.02.2021 (Annexure-A8) and RTI letter dated 1/2.04.2022 (Annexur-A9) have been issued. However, so far as the applicant is concerned, though the advance increments were granted and pay was revised by the order dated 15/20.03.2022 referred to above, consequential revised arrears of pension from the date of retirement have not been granted.
f) The ICAR has issued a general circular on 24.06.2022 stating that there is no need of writing to the ICAR for fixing the pension and payment of arrears and it can be done at the local level. Copy of the circular dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure-A11) is enclosed.
g) During the pendency of the present OA, the respondent has issued an order dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure-A13), seeking to cancel the two advance increments granted to the applicant on acquiring of Ph.D. on the ground that the same has irregularly granted and further ordered recovery of arrears from the applicant.
5
OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
h) The impugned order now issued on 02.08.2023 is contrary to the Government orders issued from time to time and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The same is without notice or opportunity to the applicant and the benefit stated to have been granted under the order dated 22.03.2022 is sought to be cancelled after lapse of one year and five months without notice and opportunity. Even otherwise, the reason given is highly unsustainable and, therefore, the impugned order dated 02.08.2023 is liable to be set aside, as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) The applicant was recruited as Scientist S-1 on 14.09.1976 and completed his Ph.D. in the year 1985. The applicant was promoted to S-2 (Senior Scientist) on 01.07.1983 and to the grade of S-3 (Principal Scientist) on 27.07.1998 under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS).
b) The applicant as a Senior Scientist was granted two advance increments from 01.01.1985 (i.e. from the date of acquisition of the Ph.D. Degree) and pay fixation made accordingly was communicated to him vide Office Order dated 29.01.2022. Dissatisfied with the same, the applicant made one more representation on 15.02.2022 for granting the two advance increments from 27.07.1998 instead of 01.01.1985.
Accordingly, two advance increments were granted to him from 27.07.1998 and pay fixation was revised in terms of Council's letter 6 OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench dated 14.11.2005 vide Office Order dated 15/23.03.2022. Arrears of pay amounting Rs.71,711/- were also paid to the applicant.
c) The revised pension papers after granting two advance increments from 27.07.1998 were sent to ICAR - IIHR, Bengaluru (pension authorising unit for ICAR - NIANP, Bengaluru) vide letter dated 09.11.2022. They, in turn, vide letter dated 11.11.2022 replied that two advance increments are to be granted w.e.f., the date of promotion to the grade of Senior Scientist and, therefore, advised to check the pay & pension revision & to seek clarification from ICAR, if need be.
d) Accordingly, letter was sent to ICAR seeking clarification regarding extension of financial benefits for the scientist for acquisition of Ph.D. Degree w.e.f., 27.07.1998. ICAR in response vide dated 16.12.2022 clarified that the applicant is eligible for 2 advance increments for acquiring Ph.D. Degree while in service, from the date of acquiring the Ph.D. Degree, i.e. from 01.01.1985 and 2 more advance increments from the date of moving to the higher grade of Sr. Scientist under CAS.
e) The applicant is eligible for two advance increments from 01.01.1985 from the date of acquiring Ph.D. degree while in service and not from 27.07.1998, as requested by the applicant. Therefore, Office Order dated 29.01.2022 granting two advance increment from 01.01.1985 and pay fixation made in terms of 4th CPC recommendations as on 01.01.1986 is in order. It does not call for any change in the Basic Pay on 01.01.1986 nor for any change or revision in the pension on superannuation.
7
OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
f) The applicant was already a Senior Scientist as on 01.01.1985. Hence, he was eligible for only two advance increments from 01.01.1985 from the date of acquiring Ph.D. Degree while in service and not from 27.07.1998, as requested by the applicant.
4. In the rejoinder to the reply, the applicant has pleaded as follows:
a) The Applicant retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2002. He was entitled for grant of advance increments in pursuance of the Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ICAR Vs. B. Sasikumar and others. As per the Apex Court judgement, a circular was issued on 20.09.2020, stating that whoever had Ph.D. Degree has to get benefits. The applicant having the required Ph.D. degree, was entitled for two additional increments.
b) The applicant is entitled to get these advance increments as per the ICAR clarification issued on 14th May 2007. It clearly indicates that in cases of scientists who had acquired Ph.D. degree while in service period are eligible for incentive of two increments w.e.f., 27.07.1998. Thus, the applicant is eligible for two increments from 27.7.1998.
c) As per ICAR letter No. 1(15) Per iv 1998 dated 14.11.2005 scientists who got Ph.D. even before 01.01.1996 and who were not given any advance increments as per earlier career advance scheme may be given benefit of two advance increments applicable from 27.07.1998, when the applicant was in ICAR service. Hence the applicant is eligible for these two increments from 27.07.1998.
8
OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
5. The respondents have filed an additional reply statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) When the applicant made a representation for grant of advance increments on November 2020, even though there was a considerable lapse of time of about 27 years, this Institute made lots of efforts in collecting the old records and relevant rules and regulations. It granted the increments w.e.f., 01.01.1985 as applicable and consequently issued the revised pay fixation order dated 29th January 2022.
b) The applicant, however, did not accept the same and again made a representation dated 11.02.2022, for grant of these two increments w.e.f., 27.07.1998. The same was considered for pay fixation. The two advance increments @ Rs. 450/- each were granted from 27.7.1998 and the pay was revised accordingly. The arrears of pay amounting to Rs.
71,711/- were also drawn and paid to the applicant. The pension was also revised and sent to the Pension Authorizing Unit (PAO) viz., The Senior Finance & Accounts Officer, IIHR, Bengaluru.
c) At this stage, the Senior Finance & Accounts Officer, IHR, Bengaluru clarified that the applicant is eligible for two advance increments from the date of acquiring Ph.D. degree as per the Council's clarification No.1 (11)/2018-per IV dated 09.11.2022 at point No.4. It further advised that the position may be clarified from the Council.
d) Pursuant to the advice rendered by the Senior Finance & Accounts Officer, IIHR, Bengaluru, the respondents were about to write a letter 9 OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench seeking advice from the ICAR Headquarters, but in the meantime, the Institute received the notice from this Tribunal in the present OA No.435/ 2022 to appear on 18.11.2022. The respondents requested ICAR, New Delhi for a suitable reply. In response ICAR vide letter dated 16.12.2022, clarified that the applicant is eligible for two advance increments for acquiring Ph.D. degree while in service, from the date of acquiring Ph.D. degree i.e., from 01.01.1985. The Institute has granted only two advance Increments as per the Council's clarification vide No.1 (11)/2018-per IV dated 09.11.2022 at point No.04. In the meanwhile, the Council has also issued a circular dated 30.06.2023 stating that grant of undue benefits to Council's employees (such as wrong promotions, grant of additional increments to ineligible officers and payment of arrears) results in pecuniary loss and such irregularities should be streamlined.
e) In view of the ICAR circular dated 30.06.2023, action was taken to recover the over payment made to the applicant. The said recovery action has been initiated pursuant to the ICAR circular dated 30.06.2023 and, therefore, the respondents could not be faulted for any irregularity.
6. The applicant has filed an additional rejoinder to the additional reply statement, and pleaded as follows:
a) The applicant admittedly acquired the Ph.D. Degree in 1985. In the year 2001, University Grants Commission issued a circular dated 31.08.2001, regarding the acquiring of Ph.D. for the purpose of grant 10 OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench of two advanced increments. In this circular it has been stated that the teachers who have acquired Ph.D. during the service prior to 01.01.1996 and who were not given the benefit of two advance increments as per the earlier career advancement scheme may now be given the benefit of two advance increments and this shall however be applicable from 27.07.1998.
b) On 14.11.2005, ICAR further clarified regarding the acquisition of Ph.D. degree and as to what date the increments has to be granted. In the instant case the applicant was entitled for the benefit from 27.07.1998 being the later date then acquiring the Ph.D. degree, he has acquired in 1985. The applicant is entitled for two increments from 27.07.1998 which has been rightly granted by the order of the department dated 22.03.2022. The prayer of the applicant for taking the said increments into consideration and, thereafter, fix his last pay drawn and consequently revise the pensionary benefit was valid and legal and the subsequent decision to cancel the increments already ordered on 22.03.2022, is bad in law.
c) Similar benefits have been extended to many senior Scientists by name B.V. Bhaskar, S. R. Gowli, K. Anandharam and they were promoted as Principal Scientists as on 27.07.1998 without insisting the Ph.D., whereas applicant has obtained the degree prior to 1.1.1996 i.e. in the year 1985 itself.
d) The applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the application. 11
OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
7. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
8. In the present case, the applicant is a retired Principal Scientist of the National Institute of Animal Nutrition & Physiology, Bengaluru which is under the purview of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research, New Delhi. The applicant had retired on 31.03.2002. The applicant had been recruited as a Scientist in the year 1976. He was promoted to the level of S- 2 (Senior Scientist) on 01.07.1983 and to the level of S-3 (Principal Scientist) on 27.07.1998 under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). He had obtained the Ph.D. degree, while in service on 01.01.1985.
9. The applicant has stated that he did not get any advance increments as incentive for having obtained the higher qualification of Doctorate Degree in his career. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ICAR Vs. B. Sasikumar & Ors vide order dated 23.08.2017 had directed that the benefits be given to the respondents under the Scheme circulated vide letter dated 27.02.1999.
10. The applicant had filed a representation to the ICAR stating that his case is similar to the case of Dr. B. Sasikumar and ors, (supra) cited by the ICAR for granting increments as incentive for higher qualification. The Hon'ble Apex Court had declared that the benefits be given to the Scientists under the Orders for revision of pay scales of the scientists of ICAR circulated by the ICAR vide its letter dated 27.02.1999.
12
OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
11. A perusal of the letter no. F.No. 1(15)/98-Per.IV dated 27.02.1999 (Annexure-A14) provides thus:
"(ii) Incentives for Ph.D./M.Phil
(a) Four and two advance increments will be admissible to those who hold Ph.D. and M. Phil degrees, respectively, at the time of recruitment as Scientists.
(b) One increment will be admissible to those scientists with M. Phil degree, who acquire Ph.D. within two years of recruitment.
(c) A Scientist with Ph.D. will be eligible for two advance increments when he moves into the Selection Grade as Sr. Scientists.
(d) A Scientist will be eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquires a Ph.D. degree in his service career. (emphasis added)
12. A perusal of the above provisions in the ICAR Scheme dated 27.02.1999 clearly states that a scientist would be eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquires a Ph.D. degree in his career. From the provisions of this Scheme, the date of grant of this incentive to the scientist for acquiring a Ph.D. degree in his service career, is the date on which he acquires that degree.
13. In the present case, the applicant had admittedly acquired his Ph.D. degree on 01.01.1985. Hence, as per the orders dated 27.02.1999, the applicant was entitled to two advance increments from 01.01.1985.
14. Subsequently, a clarification was issued by the ICAR vide their letter dated 14.11.2005 which contained the following:
13
OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench "The revised pay scales of the Scientists of ICAR following the revision of the pay scales of the Central Govt. employees on the recommendations of Vth Central Pay Commission was notified vide circular of even no. dated 27.02.99. It was indicated at para 1(ii)(d) of the said notification under incentives for Ph. D/M. Phil that a scientist will be eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquires a Ph.D. degree in his service career. In the context of eligibility of scientist for two advance increments for obtaining Ph. D degree prior to 1.1.96, it was clarified vide circular of even no. dated 28.03.01/30.03.01 that while there may be no objection to granting incentives of two advance increments for acquiring Ph. D degree at any time in the service career of the scientist, the benefit can be given only from the date from which benefit other than pay scale is made applicable i.e. 27.7.98 (or the date of acquisition of degree whichever is later). Further this incentive was admissible to all scientists provided the post held by them on aforesaid date of (27.7.98) (or the date of acquisition of Ph. D degree if it falls after 27.7.98) does not require them to have a Ph. D as a must/minimum eligibility condition for recruitment/appointment.
The matter regarding grant of advance increments to the scientists for acquiring Ph. D degree during service career was reviewed in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Expenditure in terms of UGC notification no. F5-3/2001(PS) dated 31.08.01 and it has now been decided to allow the incentive to all those who acquired Ph. D degree during service career in a uniform manner, with actual benefits from the cut off date viz. 27.07.98. Accordingly all the Scientists (including Sr. Scientists, Principal Scientists and RMPs) who acquired Ph. D degree during service even prior to 1.1.96 and who were not given the benefit of any advance increments as per earlier Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) may now be given the benefits of two advance increments. This shall however be applicable from 27.07.98 and only to those who were in ICAR service as on 27.07.98." (emphasis added) 14 OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
15. The above clarification issued by the ICAR clearly indicates that the benefits of advance increments would be available to the Scientists w.e.f., from the date of acquiring the Ph.D. degree. However, the actual benefits in such cases shall be paid only from 27.07.1998 which is the date from which benefits other than pay scales were made applicable i.e. 27.7.1998.
16. This clearly implies that although the advance increments shall be granted w.e.f., the date of the Scientist has acquired the Ph.D. Degree, the actual financial benefit resulting from grant of these advance increments shall accrue only w.e.f., the date from which this benefit (other than pay scales) has been made applicable i.e., 27.07.1998. This amounts to granting of two advance increments to the scientist from the date of his acquiring the Ph.D. degree on a notional basis, with the actual financial benefits resulting from grant of these advance increments, accruing to the scientist from 27.07.1998 only. It was also clearly specified that in cases where the date of acquiring the Ph. D degree is later than 27.7.1998, then the financial benefit shall accrue from the later date.
17. A perusal of the pleadings of the respondents indicates, that initially, the grant of two advance increments had been correctly provided to the applicant vide Office order dated 29.01.2022 from the date on which the applicant had acquired his Ph.D. Degree i.e., 01.01.1985. His pay, on 01.01.1985 after granting two additional advance increments (of Rs. 50/- each), had been refixed to Rs. 1250/- per month instead of Rs. 1150/- per month in the pay scale of 1100-50-1600. His pay on 1.7.1985 was further enhanced to Rs.1300/- after grant of a regular increment of Rs. 50/-. His pay 15 OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench on 31.12.1985 was Rs. 1300/- in the pre revised pay scale of 1100-50-1600. Consequently, his pay, based on 4th CPC recommendations, was revised w.e.f 1.1.1986. and re-fixed to Rs. 3700/- as on 01.01.1986 in the revised pay scale. It was however observed that even without grant of these two advance increments on 1.1.1985, his revised pay as on 1.1.1986 had already been fixed at Rs. 3700/-.
18. Subsequent to the pay refixation after grant of two advance increments on 1.1.1985 vide order dated 29.1.2022, the applicant submitted a representation dated 15.2.2022 that he should be granted the advance increments due to him for acquiring Ph. D. Degree from 27.07.1998 instead of 01.01.1985. The applicant relied upon the clarifications issued by ICAR vide their letter dated 14.11.2005, in this regard.
19. The National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Bengaluru, based on his representation, issued a revised office order dated 15/23.03.2022 relying upon the council's clarification letter dated 14.11.2005.
20. However, as observed in the preceding paras, the clarification given by the council vide its letter dated 14.11.2005 only specified that the actual financial benefits after allowing two advance increments as incentive to the Scientists who acquired Ph.D. degree during their service career prior to 27.7.1998 shall be from 27.07.1998. It is nowhere mentioned that the date of grant of advance increments shall be on 27.7.1998 instead of the date from which the Ph.D. degree had been acquired. The original scheme for granting these two advance increments notified vide letter dated 27th 16 OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench February 1999 had categorically and unambiguously stated that the advance increments are to be given as and when the scientist acquires the Ph. D. degree in his service career.
21. The applicant was, therefore, entitled to the advance increments from the date when he acquired his Ph.D. Degree i.e., 01.01.1985. However, he was entitled for the actual financial benefits accruing to him on account of grant of these two additional increments w.e.f., 27.07.1998 instead of 01.01.1985.
22. In the present case the grant of two advance increments on 01.01.1985 did not result in any further benefit to the applicant after 01.01.1986 on account of the pay revision consequent to the 4th CPC recommendations on 01.01.1986. The two advance increments granted to him for acquiring the Ph.D. degree, got subsumed during the pay fixation done on 1.1.1986, based on 4th CPC recommendations, and did not result in any higher revised pay to him as on or after 01.01.1986.
23. The applicant had submitted a representation dated 14.2.2022 that he should be granted the benefit of two advance increments w.e.f., 27.07.1998 instead of 01.01.1985. This was mistakenly accepted by the respondents due to an incorrect interpretation of the clarification given by the council vide its letter dated 14.11.2005. Consequent to this incorrect interpretation, the respondents had revised the pay of the applicant by wrongly granting him two advance increments on 27.07.1998 of Rs. 450/- each, vide their order dated 22.03.2022. They also released an amount of Rs. 71,711/- towards pay arrears, consequent to this pay revision.
17
OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
24. However, after a clarification received from ICAR vide its letter dated 16.12.2022, the respondents have withdrawn the order dated 22.03.2022 vide which the applicant had been given two advance increments from 27.07.1998, instead of 1.1.1985. They have also held that the earlier pay fixation after grant of two advance increments on 1.1.1985 dated 29.1.2022 is correct. They have consequently requested the applicant vide their letter dated 2.8.2023 for refund of the arrears of Rs. 71,711/- wrongly paid to him.
25. The applicant has stated that the order passed on 02.08.2023 (Annexure-
A13) is violative of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "State of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer), Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014 dated 18th December, 2014".
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) had categorically observed as follows:
"2. All the private respondents in the present bunch of cases, were given monetary benefits, which were in excess of their entitlement. These benefits flowed to them, consequent upon a mistake committed by the concerned competent authority, in determining the emoluments payable to them. The mistake could have occurred on account of a variety of reasons; including the grant of a status, which the concerned employee was not entitled to; or payment of salary in a higher scale, than in consonance of the right of the concerned employee; or because of a wrongful fixation of salary of the employee, consequent upon the upward revision of pay-scales; or for having been granted allowances, for which the concerned employee was not authorized. The long and short of the matter is, that all the private respondents were beneficiaries of a mistake committed by the employer, and on account of the said unintentional mistake, employees were in receipt of monetary benefits, beyond their due.18
OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
3. Another essential factual component in this bunch of cases is, that the respondent-employees were not guilty of furnishing any incorrect information, which had led the concerned competent authority, to commit the mistake of making the higher payment to the employees. The payment of higher dues to the private respondents, in all these cases, was not on account of any misrepresentation made by them, nor was it on account of any fraud committed by them. Any participation of the private respondents, in the mistake committed by the employer, in extending the undeserved monetary benefits to the respondent-employees, is totally ruled out. It would therefore not be incorrect to record, that the private respondents, were as innocent as their employers, in the wrongful determination of their inflated emoluments.
4. The issue that we have been required to adjudicate is, whether all the private respondents, against whom an order of recovery (of the excess amount) has been made, should be exempted in law, from the reimbursement of the same to the employer. For the applicability of the instant order, and the conclusions recorded by us hereinafter, the ingredients depicted in the foregoing two paragraphs are essentially indispensable....
27. In the present case, the revision of the office order dated 29.01.2022 by the respondents, and issuance of a fresh order dated 22.3.2022, was based upon a specific representation dated 14.02.2022 made by the applicant. This has resulted in the incorrect fixation of pay and release of pay arrears to the applicant. Since in this particular case, the incorrect fixation of pay, and release of pay arrears of Rs. 71,711/- has been made by the respondents at the request of the applicant, the directions issued by the Honorable Apex Court in the case 'Rafiq Masih (supra)' are not applicable and will not come to the aid of the applicant.
19
OA.No.435/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
28. Keeping in view the above facts, the present OA lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
29. Accordingly, the OA stands dismissed.
30. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/hy/