Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Rajesh P K vs Ministry Of Electronics And ... on 8 October, 2025
1
O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected
matters /CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOs.170/00564/2024,
170/00565/2024, 170/00566/2024 & 170/00567/2024
Order Reserved on: 17.9.2025
Date of Order: 08.10.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
O.A 180/00564/2024
Ms. Kiran P Mahajan,
D/o Sri. Prabhakar Mahajan, Aged 48 years,
Ex-Deputy Director (Application),
Unique Identification Authority of India,
Technology Centre, Aadhaar Complex,
NTI Layout, Tata Nagar, Kodigehalli,
Bengaluru-560 092,
Residing at G-3, Brindavan Apartment,
6th Floor, Opp. Adugodi Police Station,
Hosur Road, Bengaluru-560 030. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Shri.A.R.Holla)
Vs.
1. Union of India, By Secretary, Ministry of Electronics
& Information Technology. Electronics Niketan, 6,
CGO Complex. Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
2. The Chief General Manager, Karnataka Telecom Circle,
No.1, Swami Vivekananda Road, Halasuru,
SHAIN SHAINEY
CAT
VIJU
EY Bangalore
2025.10.08
VIJU 17:55:57
+05'30'
2
O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected
matters /CAT/BANGALORE
Bengaluru-560 008.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Unique Identification
Authority of India, Bangal Sahib Road,
Behind Kali Mandir, Gole Market,
New Delhi-110001.
4. The Deputy Director General (Admn),
UIDAI Technology Centre, Aadhar Complex,
NTI Layout, Tata Nagar, Kodigehalli,
Bengaluru-560 092. ......Respondents
(By Advocates Shri.S.Prakash Shetty for Respondent Nos.1,3 & 4 and
Shri.N.Amaresh for Respondent No.2)
O.A 180/00565/2024
Praveen Kumar M.D., S/o Sri.Damodaran M.V.,
Aged 45 years, Ex-Deputy Director (Data Centre Infra)
Unique Identification Authority of India, Technology Centre,
Aadhaar Complex, NTI Layout, Tata Nagar, Kodigehalli,
Bengaluru-560 092, Residing at No. B-201,
Shriram Luxor Apartment, Behind United International School,
Chikkagubbi, Kannuru, Hennur Main Road,
Bengaluru-562 149. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Shri.A.R.Holla)
Vs.
1. Union of India, By Secretary,
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology.
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. The Chief General Manager, Karnataka
Telecom Circle, No.1, Swami Vivekananda Road,
Halasuru, Bengaluru-560 008.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Unique Identification
SHAIN SHAINEY
CAT
VIJU
EY Bangalore
2025.10.08
VIJU 17:55:57
+05'30'
3
O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected
matters /CAT/BANGALORE
Authority of India, Bangal Sahib Road, Behind Kali Mandir,
Gole Market, New Delhi-110001.
4. The Deputy Director General (Admn),
UIDAI Technology Centre, Aadhar Complex,
NTI Layout, Tata Nagar, Kodigehalli,
Bengaluru-560 092. ......Respondents
(By Advocates Shri.S.Prakash Shetty for Respondent Nos.1,3 & 4 and
Shri.N.Amaresh for Respondent No.2)
O.A 180/00566/2024
Lokesh G.,
S/o Sri.Ganesh K., Aged 45 years,
working as Sub-Divisional Engineer, BSNL,
Karnataka Telecom Circle, No.1,
Swamy Vivekananda Road, Halasuru,
Bengaluru-560 008, Residing at No. 30/4-1,
Krishnappa Layout, Devanathachar Street,
5th Main, Chamarajapet, Bengaluru-560 018. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Shri.A.R.Holla)
Vs.
1. Union of India, By Secretary, Ministry of Electronics &
Information Technology, Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
2. The Chief General Manager, Karnataka Telecom Circle, BSNL,
No.1, Swami Vivekananda Road, Halasuru, Bengaluru-560 008.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Unique Identification Authority of
India, Bangal Sahib Road, Behind Kali Mandir, Gole Market, New
Delhi-110001.
4. The Deputy Director General (Admn), UIDAI Technology Centre,
Aadhar Complex, NTI Layout, Tata Nagar, Kodigehalli, Bengaluru-
560 092. ......Respondents
SHAIN SHAINEY
CAT
VIJU
EY Bangalore
2025.10.08
VIJU 17:55:57
+05'30'
4
O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected
matters /CAT/BANGALORE
(By Advocates Shri.S.Prakash Shetty for Respondent Nos.1,3 & 4 and
Shri.N.Amaresh for Respondent No.2)
O.A 180/00567/2024
Rajesh P.K.,
S/o Sri. Krishnan P.A., Aged 47 years,
Ex-Deputy Director (CIDR Operations),
Unique Identification Authority of India,
Technology Centre, Aadhaar Complex,
NTI Layout, Tata Nagar, Kodigehalli,
Bengaluru-560 092, Residing at No.C-505,
Alpine Pyramid Apartments, Canara Bank Layout, Shakar Nagar,
Vidyaranyapura Post, Bengaluru-560 097. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Shri.A.R.Holla)
Vs.
1. Union of India, By Secretary, Ministry of
Electronics & Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. The Chief General Manager,
Karnataka Telecom Circle, No.1,
Swami Vivekananda Road, Halasuru,
Bengaluru-560 008.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Unique Identification Authority of India, Bangal Sahib Road,
Behind Kali Mandir, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001.
4. The Deputy Director General (Admn),
UIDAI Technology Centre, Aadhar Complex,
NTI Layout, Tata Nagar, Kodigehalli,
Bengaluru-560 092. ......Respondents
SHAIN SHAINEY
CAT
VIJU
EY Bangalore
2025.10.08
VIJU 17:55:57
+05'30'
5
O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected
matters /CAT/BANGALORE
(By Advocates Shri.S.Prakash Shetty for Respondent Nos.1,3 & 4 and
Shri.N.Amaresh for Respondent No.2)
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
These Original Application Nos. 170/00564/2024, 170/00565/2024, 170/00566/2024 and 170/00567/2024 are taken together for disposal as they have comparable facts and identical issues to be decided. For the purpose of ease, the facts of the O.A 564/2024 are taken as a lead case. These Original Applications have been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 claiming the following reliefs:
O.A 564/2024
"(a) To quash the Order F. No. TC-
UID/ADMIN/GENERAL...
ADMIN/01/BLR/2016-17 dated 27.08.2024 issued by the respondent No.4, Annexure-A9,
(b) Direct the respondents to not recover any amount from the applicant in pursuance of the above order and refund the amount recovered, if any, with interest at 18% per annum to the applicant and
(c) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."
SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 6 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE 565/2024 "(a) To quash the Order F. No. TC-
UID/ADMIN/GENERAL..
ADMIN/01/BLR/2016-17 dated 27.08.2024 issued by the respondent No.4, Annexure-A9,
(b) Direct the respondents to not recover any amount from the applicant in pursuance of the above order and refund the amount recovered, if any, with interest at 18% per annum to the applicant and
(c) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."
566/2024
"(a) To quash the Order F.No. TC-
UID/ADMIN/GENERAL, ADMIN/01/BLR/2016-17 dated 27.08.2024 issued by the respondent No.4, Annexure-A9,
(b) Direct the respondents to not recover any amount from the applicant in pursuance of the above order and refund the amount recovered, if any, with interest at 18% per annum to the applicant and
(c) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. "
567/2024
"(a) To quash the Order F.No. TC-UID/ ADMIN/ GENERAL. ADMIN/01/BLR/2016-
17 dated 27.08.2024 issued by the respondent No.4, Annexure-A9, SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 7 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE
(b) Direct the respondents to not recover any amount from the applicant in pursuance of the above order and refund the amount recovered, if any, with interest at 18% per annum to the applicant and
(c) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The reliefs are claimed on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(i) to (iv) of the Original Application. The brief facts narrated by the applicant are that the applicant, working in BSNL, was deputed to UIDAI to work as Senior Technical Officer. She assumed charge of the post on 02.04.2012. The deputation was for 3 years initially, which was extended till 30.09.2021. Her pay was fixed in IDA scale. Thereafter, she opted for fixation of her pay in CDA scale with effect from 01.01.2016 as per the procedure laid down under Rule 7(A) of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 which has been approved by the respondent No.3. Thereafter, the internal auditors raised objection with regard to fixation of her pay in CDA scale with effect from 01.01.2016. Based on the audit objection, the respondent No.3, decided to re-fix the pay of the applicant, reducing the same with effect from 01.01.2016. The applicant was repatriated to BSNL. SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 8 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE Thereafter, the applicant challenged the order of re-fixation of his pay before this Tribunal in OA/170/308/2021.
3. This Tribunal allowed OA/170/308/2021 by an order dated 05.07.2023 and the respondent No.3 was directed to reconsider the case and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. However, the respondent No.4 issued a notice to the applicant dated 30.05.2024 asking him to explain as to why Rs.9,26,299/- should not be recovered from the applicant on the ground it is an excess payment. The applicant submitted her reply on 09.06.2024 against the proposed recovery. However, the respondent No.4 issued an order dated 27.08.2024 directing the applicant to remit Rs.9,26,299/- to UIDAI on the ground it was paid in excess. The applicant has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the above order dated 27.08.2024 and seeking consequential benefits.
4. On notice, a reply affidavit and a reply statement has been filed by the Respondent Nos.1,3 and 4; and a separate reply has been filed by the Respondent No.2. Thereafter, no rejoinder has been filed by the applicant.
SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 9 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE
5. The case came up for final hearing on 17.9.2025. Shri.A.R.Holla for the applicants and Shri.S.Prakash Shetty for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 in O.A Nos.564/2024,566/2024 and 567/2024, Shri.Vishnu Bhat for Respondent Nos.1,3 and 4 in O.A 565/2024 and Shri.N.Amaresh for Respondent No.2 were present and heard.
6. We have carefully gone through the entire records and considered the rival contentions.
7. The basic facts of the case is not denied that the applicant Smt. Kiran P Mahajan was working as Sub Divisional Engineer (SDE)(EB) G&S in O/o CGMT, BSNL, Bangalore and the UIDAI had advertised for filling up of vacancies by calling for the application of eligible officers from all departments of the Government, including BSNL. The applicant applied for the post of Principal System Analyst (deputation post) in UIDAI and was selected. Subsequently, on being selected, and based on UIDAI letter No.TC-UIDAI /admin/007/BLR dated 16.1.2012 and BSNL Corporate office, New Delhi, the applicant was relieved from the office of CGM, Karnataka Circle vide No.EB- 523/2011-12 dated 31.3.2012 based on stipulated guidelines/terms and conditions.
SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 10 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE
8. The applicant assumed the charge at UIDAI (Data Centre), Bengaluru on 2.4.2012. The deputation was for only 3 years initially and it was extended from time to time and the latest extension was given till 30.09.2021 'on loan basis' vide BSNL Corporate office No.BSNL CO-PRII/25(11)/4/2020-PERSI dated 25.6.2021. Vide BSNL Corporate Office letter dated 11.9.2019, BSNL Corporate Office had approved for deployment of the applicant, along with others on loan basis as it was beyond the deputation period of 7 years and has mentioned that all conditions of deputation shall be applicable and all the liabilities arising out of this deployment on loan basis shall be binding on UIDAI and executive without any reservation.
9. Paragraph (2) of the Terms and Conditions attached with the deputation order of the officers deputed to UIDAI under foreign service stated as follows:
"(2) Pay and Allowances: The pay and allowances of the officer during the period of deputation will be regulated in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Ministry of Finance O.M No.F1(II)-E.III(B)/75 dated 7.11.1975, as amended from time to time. "
10. The respondent department has not been able to show us the Ministry of Finance O.M No.F1(II)-E.III(B)/75 dated 7.11.1975 as SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 11 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE amended from time to time. Although what is referred to is another document which is presented in O.A 565/2024 as O. M of the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training in No.6/8/2009-Estt.(Pay II) dated 17th June 2010 with the subject, "Transfer on deputation/foreign service of Central Government Employees to excadre posts under the Central Government/ State Governments/Public Sector UndertakingslAutonomous Bodies, Universities/ UT Administration, Local Bodies etc. and vice-versa - Regulation of pay, Deputation (duty) Allowance, tenure of deputation/foreign service and other terms and conditions - regarding." As the applicants have not disputed the relevance of this document, the same is taken into account to appreciate the case of the applicant.
11. It was asserted by the respondents that the services of the applicants on deputation from BSNL to UIDAI are governed by this O.M dated 17.6.2010. This O. M is designed for deputation/foreign service of Central Government Employees to ex-cadre posts under the Central Government. Whereas the applicant being a BSNL employee and BSNL being a Government of India company, it was canvassed that they are also governed by the same deputation rule. However, it SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 12 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE was brought to our notice that the applicant being a BSNL employee is governed by the Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) whereas the Central Government employees are governed by the Central Dearness Allowance (CDA).
12. We specifically inquired from the parties if the BSNL has any deputation rule? It was asserted by the respondents that the BSNL has no separate rules, and it has adopted all residual rules of the Central Government, and these orders are very much applicable to the BSNL employees.
13. The impugned order at Annexure A-9 dated 27.8.2024 is a speaking order in compliance with the order of this Tribunal in O.A No.170/308/2021 dated 5.7.2023. The operative portion of the order in O.A 170/308/2021 reads as follows:
"1) Annexure-A12 dated 16.02.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 4 and Annexure-A14 dated 20.04.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 3 are quashed. The matter is restored to the file of Respondent No. 3 to re-consider the matter after issuing the show cause notice to the applicant. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
2) Respondent No. 3 is directed to pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after considering the reply to be filed by the applicant to the show cause notice.
SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 13 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE
3) Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner in any event not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of the reply/objections to the show cause notice.
4) OA stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs."
14. The impugned order was preceded by a notice dated 30.5.2024 in F.No.TC/UID/ADMIN/GENERAL ADMIN/01/BLR/2016-17 (Annexure A-7) and to which the applicant had given her reply vide her letter dated 7.6.2024 which is at Annexure A-8 and after considering the submission of the applicant, the respondents have passed a speaking order as in Annexure A-9 dated 27.8.2024 which is impugned in this O.A. The said order is pursuant to the objections raised by the internal audit with regard to the pay fixation of the applicant, in particular, after the third switching over to the CDA scale from 1.1.2016 after the implementation of the 7th CPC.
15. From the submissions, it is evident that the main objection was regarding the rules of deputation, which only provided for the limited exercise of the option of choices between the parent department and the new department pay and emoluments by a deputationist as contained in paragraph 4 of the said O.M dated 17.6.2010 of DoPT referred earlier. The contention of the applicant is that they had a SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 14 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE choice as a deputationist to choose between the two scales, and they could have exercised choices between the scales of the parent department and the department of deputation as many times as they wished or required. Whereas the contention of the respondents is that the applicant had only two choices, once when they joined the new department on deputation, when they could have elected to draw either the pay scale of the deputation/foreign service post or his/her basic pay in the parent cadre plus the deputation allowance thereon plus personal pay, if any. And the option once exercised was final. And as provided in paragraph 4.4. of the said O.M dated 17.6.2010. The employee could revise their option in a limited manner of the circumstances given therein in various paragraphs from (a) to (d) in the same paragraph of the DoPT O.M dated 17.6.2010). And because of this from the date of implementation of 7th CPC on 1.1.2016 onwards, the pay and allowances of the officers on deputation like the applicant was wrongly fixed earlier, as the applicant had no such option of seeking change from the IDA to CDA scale after the commencement of 7th CPC on 1.1.2016, as she had already exhausted her right of two choices much earlier. SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 15 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE
16. Further from the averments, it is also evident that part of the variation in the pay and allowances has been there because of the imposition of a 7-year clause of maximum deputation period; and beyond that no deputation benefit was to be provided to the person and the deputationist were not even recognized as being on "deputation" but were named as being on "loan basis", and which period for the applicant started when she completed 7 years of her deputation on 2.4.2019 as she had joined on deputation on 2.4.2012 in UIDAI from her parent department BSNL. So some of the differences of the excess pay is also due to this and because of these two reasons it is evident that the show cause notice discretely mentioned an amount of Rs.9,26,299/- to be proposed to be recovered from the applicant. And applicant had to show cause on the same in ten days time, and a detailed revised due and drawn statement in respect of the applicant was attached with the notice, and the final order which is on record at page 40 shows the details of due amount and the drawn amount and the difference thereon starting from 1.1.2016.
17. We can also see that there is a distinction made between the days 1.4.2019 and 2.4.2019 onwards in the due and drawn amount statement on record. But it is not clear from the revised due and drawn SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 16 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE statement how much of the difference in the amount is because of the completion of 7 years and the applicant being "on loan" to UIDAI, and how much of it is due to the wrong fixation of pay on 1.1.2016 after the introduction of the 7th CPC. Hence, for our consideration following issues are framed:
Q.1. How far the respondents are correct in reviewing the pay fixation of the applicant effective from 01.01.2016 after commencement of 7th CPC? And how far the recovery proposed as per the audit objection based on the conditions of Rule 4 of the DoPT O.M dated 17.6.2010 is justified against the applicant? Can such amount proposed for recovery be covered under the exception of the lead Apex Court judgment in the Rafiq Masih case? Q.2. How far post-facto recovery due to overstaying 7 years of regular deputation after 2.4.2019, from the applicant being considered on "loan basis" to UIDAI is justified?
3. Whether due procedures have been followed as was directed in the earlier C.A.T order dated 5.7.2023 in O.A No.170/00308/2021?
4. If so, what orders?
18. We have carefully gone through the records and, as it is clear and not denied that in paragraph 2 of the terms and conditions attached SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 17 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE with the deputation order of the applicant while being deputed to UIDAI under foreign service, they specifically mentioned the following:
"(2) Pay and Allowances: The pay and allowances of the officer during the period of deputation will be regulated in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Ministry of Finance O.M No.F1(II)-E.III(B)/75 dated 7.11.1975, as amended from time to time. "
19. Further, we have examined the O.M. No.6/8/2009-Estt.(Pay II) dated 17.6.2010 of DoP&T with the subject, "Transfer on deputation/foreign service of Central Government Employees to ex- cadre posts under the Central Government/ State Governments/Public Sector Undertakings/Autonomous Bodies, Universities/ UT Administration, Local Bodies etc. and vice versa - Regulation of pay, Deputation (duty) Allowance, tenure of deputation/foreign service and other terms and conditions - regarding." As the relevance of the same is not disputed, we consider it that respondents have rightly applied paragraph 4 of the O. M in the case of the applicant under the head 'Exercise of Option' in paragraph 4.1. The said O.M. clearly mentions that an employee appointed on deputation/foreign service may elect to draw in the foreign service post or his/her in the parent cadre, plus deputation allowance thereon, plus personal pay, if any. SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 18 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE
20. And further in paragraph 4.3 of the same O.M, it mentions that the option once exercised shall be final. Further in paragraph 4.4., it mentions that the employee may revise the option under the following circumstances which will be effective from the date of occurrence of the same:
(a) When he/she receives proforma promotion or is appointed to non-functional selection grade or up-
gradation of scale in the parent cadre;
(b) When he/she is reverted to a lower grade in the parent cadre;
(c) When the scale of pay of the parent post on the basis of which his emoluments are regulated during deputation/foreign service or of the ex-cadre post held by the employee on deputation/foreign service is revised either prospectively or from a retrospective date.
(d) Based on the revised/same option of the employee, in the event of proforma promotion/appointment to non-functional Selection Grade/revision/upgradation of scales of pay in the parent cadre, his/her pay will be re-fixed with reference to the revised entitlement of pay in the parent cadre. However, if the initial option was for the pay scale of the deputation post and no change in option already exercised is envisaged, the pay already drawn in deputation post will be protected f the pay re-fixed is less.
Note: Revision in the rates of DA, HRA or any other allowance either in the parent or borrowing SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 19 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE organisation shall not be an occasion for revision of the earlier option."
21. Further our attention is drawn to paragraph 5 under the heading "Pay Fixation". Paragraph 5(ii) mentions as follows:
"(ii) In foreign service1/Reverse Foreign Service
(a) when the pay scale of the post in the parent cadre and that attached to ex-cadre post are based on the same index level and the DA pattern is also same, the pay may be fixed as under (i) above.
(b) If the appointment is made to a post whose pay structure and or DA pattern is dissimilar to that in the parent organisation, pay may be fixed by adding one increment to the pay in the parent cadre post in the scale of his regular parent post ( and if helshe was drawing pay at the maximum of the scale, by the increment last drawn) and equating the pay so raised plus dearness allowance (and additional or ad-hoc dearness allowance, lnterim relief etc.. if any) with emoluments comprising of pay plus DA.
ADA, Interim relief etc., if any, admissible, in the borrowing organisation and the pay may be fixed at the stage in the pay scale of the ex-cadre post at which total emoluments admissible in the ex-cadre post as above equal the emoluments drawn in the cadre."
22. The respondents assert that (as explained earlier) these are the only two instances when the applicant could have given the option and there was no possibility of a third option to be exercised. The applicant was unable to show any provision which may have given her unlimited choices and if they could have been given an option to SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 20 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE change their choice for the 3rd time. From the facts of the case, it is evident that, initially on deputation, the applicant opted for fixation of pay in the CDA pattern and, accordingly, her pay was fixed vide the fixation order dated 1.5.2012 effective from 1.4.2012, and the applicant was accordingly getting emoluments as per the same. Subsequently, the applicant, with effect from 10.6.2013, requested fixation of her pay in the IDA pattern and vide fixation order dated 24.6.2014, effective from 10.6.2013, the pay and emoluments of the applicant were fixed in IDA due to 78.2% IDA fitment by the parent organization. Subsequently, on the introduction of the 7th CPC from 1.1.2016, the applicant asked to the Department to revert her pay fixation back to the CDA pattern and, based on the said request, her emoluments were fixed again effective from 1.1.2016 vide order dated 17.4.2017. However before the said fixation an undertaking was obtained from the applicant on 2.3.2017 which inter-alia other things mentioned the following:
" I hereby undertake that in the event of any pay having been fixed in a manner contrary to the provisions contained in the Rules, as detected subsequently, any excess payment so made shall be refunded by me to the Government either by adjustment against future payments due to me or otherwise."
SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 21 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE
23. The applicant is unable to show us any specific rules which support such over and above an initial choice and more than one additional subsequent option for pay fixation in a case of Deputation.
24. Let us see the grounds which the applicant has made out in paragraph 5 of the O.A. In paragraph 5(1), the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 27.08.2024, issued by the respondent No.4, Annexure-A9 is contrary to the direction given by the CAT earlier. The CAT has directed the respondent No.3 to issue a show cause notice to the applicant and consider her reply. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 was required to pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law within six weeks. The respondent No.3 has not issued any show cause notice to the applicant; nor has considered the reply of the applicant. The impugned order, Annexure-A9 has been passed by the respondent No.4, who is subordinate to the respondent No.3. In fact, the respondent No.3 was the authority who had approved the fixation of the pay of the applicant in CDA scales vide order dated 27.02.2017, but changed his stance later without any justification. As such, the impugned order, Annexure-A9 is liable to be set aside, being in violation of the direction issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal. SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 22 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE
25. We have carefully gone through the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 5.7.2023 which clearly mentions that Annexure A-12 in O.A 170/308/2021 dated 16.2.2021 issued by respondent no.4 and Annexure A-14 dated 20.4.2021 in O.A 170/308/2021 issued by respondent no.3 were quashed, and the matter was restored to the file of respondent no.3 to re-consider the matter after issuing the show- cause notice to the applicant. Furthermore, it mentions that all the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
26. We are of the considered opinion that none of the observations made earlier in the O.A. would come in the way of the respondents to decide the case of the applicant, as all the rights and contentions of the parties were left open. We find that clearly vide Annexure A-7, dated 30.5.2024, notices were issued to the applicant in F.No.TC/UID/ADMIN/GENERAL ADMIN/01/BLR/2016-17 which also clearly mentions the undertaking given by the applicant earlier on 2.3.2017 and that her pay was wrongly fixed at that point of time and after the said notice (show-cause notice) 10 days' time was also given from the date of receipt of that notice as to show cause why recovery of an amount of Rs.9,26,299/- should not be made on account of the wrong pay fixation during her services as Deputy Director in UIDAI SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 23 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE Technology Centre Bengaluru? To which the applicant has replied in Annexure A-8 dated 7.6.2024 and after considering only, the order in Annexure A-9 dated 27.8.2024 in F.No.TC/UID/ADMIN/GENERAL ADMIN/01/BLR/2016-17 has been passed. Hence, procedure wise, we do not find any lacuna in the same. As also with reference to the first issue framed, we find that as per extant rules the applicant could have only exercised choices for pay fixation, first time while joining the foreign employer and a second time, based on any of the contingencies provided in paragraph 4 of the relevant O. M dated 17.6.2010 of DoPT No.6/8/2009-Estt. (Pay II). We are not convinced that any rule required Respondent No.3 only to pass such pay revision or recovery order, and the Respondent 4 could not have passed such order as contended by the applicant.
27. However, we do not find that the show-cause notice or the final order or even the reduced due drawn statement attached to the orders clearly bifurcated after 2.4.2019 the details of excess drawn due to erroneous pay revision effective from 1.1.2016 and due to the alleged status of the applicant after 7 years of deputation as "on loan basis"
separately. When the applicant had completed 7 years of deputation in UIDAI and the respondents in consultation with the parent SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 24 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE department BSNL designated the deputationist as on "loan basis" it was the duty of the respondent department to clearly separately specify as to how much of the difference of pay and allowances was due to that on "Loan basis" status and how much was due to the wrong pay fixation. In the absence of any such clear bifurcation, we are of the considered opinion that due opportunity is not given to the applicant to be heard on that matter of treating her service as on "Loan basis" effective from 02.04.2019 onwards.
28. The respondents have asserted that the deputation rules clearly envisage a maximum of 7 years of deputation and beyond that period, deputationist have to be on a "loan basis" when they don't get any special benefit which accrues to the persons who come on deputation.
29. They again referred to the DoPT O. M dated 17.6.2010, particularly paragraph 8 on tenure of deputation, which inter-alia other things, mentions the following:
8. Tenure of deputation of foreign service.. 8.1 The period of deputation/foreign service shall be as per the Recruitment Rules of the ex-cadre post or 3 years in case no tenure regulations exist for the ex-cadre post.
8.2. In case where the period of deputation/foreign service prescribed in the recruitment rules of the ex-
cadre post is 3 years or less, the Administrative SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 25 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE Ministry/borrowing organisation may grant extension upto the 4'"ear after obtaining orders of their Secretary (in the Central Government)lChief Secretary (in the State Government)/ equivalent officer (in respect of other cases) and for the fifth year with the approval of the Minister of the borrowing Ministry/Department and in respect of other organisations with the approval of the Minister of the borrowing Ministry/Department with which they are administratively concerned. 8.3.1 The borrowing Ministries/ Departments/Organisations may extend the period of deputation upto the fifth year where absolutely necessary in public interest, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The extension would be subject to the prior approval of the lending organisation, the consent of the official concerned and wherever necessary, the approval of the UPSCI State Public Service Commission and Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC).
(ii) If the borrowing organisation wishes to retain an officer beyond the prescribed tenure, it shall initiate action for seeking concurrence of lending organisation, individual concerned etc. six months before the date of expiry of tenure. In no case it should retain an official beyond the sanctioned tem unless prior approval of the competent authority to grant further extension has been obtained.
(iii) No further extension beyond the fifth year shall be considered 8.3.2 Where extension is granted up to the fifth year, the official concerned will continue to be allowed deputation (duty) allowance, if he/she has opted to draw deputation (duty) allowance.
SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 26 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE 8.4 There shall be a mandatory 'cooling off period of three years after every period of deputation/foreign service up to Joint Secretary level posts and one year for Additional Secretary level posts.
8.5 A Central Government employee shall be eligible for deputation/foreign service to posts in State Government1 State Government Organisation/Government - of UT/ Government of UT's Organisation/ Autonomous Bodies. Trusts. Societies, PSUs etc. not controlled by the Central Government only after he has completed 9 years of service and is clear from the vigilance angle. 8.6 If during the period of deputation1 foreign service, on account of proforma promotion in the parent cadre the official concerned becomes entitled to a higher Pay Scale1 Pay Band 8 Grade Pay in the parent cadre vis-a-vis that of the ex-cadre post, the official shall complete his/her normal /extended tenure of deputation already sanctioned with the approval of the competent authority. The pay shall be regulated as under:
(a) If the Grade pay of the officer in the parent cadre becomes higher than that of the deputation post after getting proforma promotion, he may be allowed the pay in the pay band + Grade Pay of the post to which he is promoted till the time he completes the normal extended period of deputation (if he gets proforma promotion in the extended period) already sanctioned, if he so opts. No extension in the period of deputation shall be allowed to him after completing the sanctioned period of deputation.
(b) If he draws the pay in the pay band + Grade pay attached to the deputation post, on reversion to his parent cadre, his pay may be fixed by allowing him SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 27 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE notional increments in his regular post in the parent department + the Grade pay attached to it.
(c) If the Grade pay of the officer in the parent cadre becomes higher than that of the deputation post on getting financial upgradation under the ACPIMACP scheme, the officer may be allowed to draw the pay in the pay band + Grade Pay to which he becomes entitled to under the ACPIMACPS, if opted for by him, as laid down in Para 27 of Annexure I to the DOPT OM No. 350341312008 -
Estt. (D) dated 19th May, 2009. "
30. We are not able to see any 7-year period shown there in the said O.M. What is shown is a three-year deputation to be extended to the 4th year after obtaining orders from the Ministry/borrowing organization. Then the 5th year extension was with the approval of the Minister of the borrowing Ministry and beyond the 5th year where absolutely necessary in the public interest, subject to certain conditions.
31. On asking if this condition was clearly mentioned in the deputation order of the applicant or the deputation extension orders? The respondents could not show us any such condition. On asking if, on completion of 7 years on 2.4.2019, any such clear option was given to the applicant to either go back to the parent department or to lose the deputation benefits from that day onwards, as she will be SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 28 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE considered on a "loan basis" there after, we find complete silence on the said issue from the side of the respondents.
32. It is not clear when the first time the respondents have considered the case of applicant and informed her that she would be or was on a "loan basis" from such and such date in terms of such and such rules, and to clearly intimate her as to what will be the consequences on the salary and allowances of the applicant due to such change in her status from a Deputationist to that of a person on "loan basis". However, it is evident from the revised due and drawn statement attached with the impugned order that the differences in the emoluments and recoverables are changing from 2.4.2019 onwards; and it appears that a part of the difference could be due to overshooting the 7-year deputation period and treating the applicant on "loan basis".
We are unable to see if the differences on this account was separately quantified, and bifurcated with reasons assigned. Hence, from the available submissions before us and arguments across the bar, we are not convinced about any penalty put on the applicant for working on deputation in UIDAI beyond a 7-year period and considering them post facto as "on loan basis". It is also clear from the submission that UIDAI does not have their own cadre, and it is a fact that they have SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 29 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE taken work from the applicants even after 7 years, as they were already well-trained and doing their job well, as nothing is submitted that their work was not satisfactory. Hence, we are not convinced about the post-facto recoveries based on the ground of applicant overshooting their deputation of a 7-year period and being only on a "loan basis"
after 2.4.2019.
33. In their reply affidavit filed on 3.12.2024 the respondents have agitated as preliminary objection that the instant Original Application is not maintainable in law, as the Central Administrative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the O.A, inasmuch as the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in respect of matters specified under section 14(3) have not been extended by the Central Government through notification under Section 14(2) ibid. to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and as such on this ground alone the O.A is liable to be dismissed.
34. As it was pointed out by the respondents, this is the second round of litigation and already this matter was dealt by this Tribunal in O.A No.170/308/2021 wherein this Tribunal had heard the matter and passed an order on 5.7.2023 and at this juncture in the second SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 30 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE round of litigation the respondents cannot take such contentions. We are in agreement with the applicants. Hence, this preliminary objection is over-ruled.
35. Further, the applicant has canvassed that even if the Court comes to the conclusion that the rules exist and applicable to the applicant requiring re-fixation of pay, there cannot be any recovery from the applicant, as the re-fixation is after a lapse of more than 5 years and the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant as it is not their mistake or there was any criminality involved by which the applicant manipulated or mis-represented the facts and caused any wrong fixation of her pay. Hence, the applicant contends that they must get the benefit of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in State of Punjab & Ors etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. in Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014 [(2015) 4 SCC 334] (arising out SLP No.11684/2012) and in the case Chadi Prasad Uniyal And Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand And Ors., 2012 AIR SCW 4742, (2012 8SCC
417.
36. In the said Rafiq Masih case supra The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 31 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement, and the Hon'ble Court has summarized 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 harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover." (emphasis supplied).
37. Per contra, the respondents have argued that the case of the applicants will not come within the purview of State of Punjab & Ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc supra as in the case of the applicants specifically undertakings were given, like in the case of the SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 32 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE applicant Smt.Kiran P Mahajan in O.A No.564/2024, an undertaking dated 2.3.2017, was given as follows:
" I hereby undertake that in the event of any pay having been fixed in a manner contrary to the provisions contained in the Rules, as detected subsequently, any excess payment so made shall be refunded by me to the Government either by adjustment against future payments due to me or otherwise."
38. The respondents have argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others v. Jagdev Singh in Civil Appeal No.3500/2006, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 = 2016 SCC online SC 748, has ruled on 29.7.2016 as follows:
"9. The submission of the Respondent, which found favour with the High Court, was that a payment which has been made in excess cannot be recovered from an employee who has retired from the service of the state. This, in our view, will have no application to a situation such as the present where an undertaking was specifically furnished by the officer at the time when his pay was initially revised accepting that any payment found to have been made in excess would be liable to be adjusted. While opting for the benefit of the revised pay scale, the Respondent was clearly on notice of the fact that a future re- fixation or revision may warrant an adjustment of the excess payment, if any, made.
10. In State of Punjab & Ors etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. (2015) 4 SCC 334, this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 33 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer 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 harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover." (emphasis supplied).
11. The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.
12. For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court which set aside the action for recovery is unsustainable. However, we are of the view that the recovery should be made in reasonable instalments. We direct that the recovery be made SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 34 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE in equated monthly instalments spread over a period of two years.
13. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The Civil Appeal shall stand allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. "
39. We have carefully examined the case of the applicants in the light of Jagdev Singh's case supra. We are of the considered opinion that the benefits as made as exception from the recovery in the case of Rafiq Masih's case will not apply in the case of the applicant as an abundant precaution, at the time of 3rd change of pay fixation by the applicant, an undertaking was taken by the respondents from the applicants which is also on record. Hence, if the pay fixation was incorrect the respondent employer has a right to re-fix the pay and also to effect the recovery thereon. (It is made clear that this observation in this paragraph is limited to the recovery related to the erroneous pay fixation for the third time and not for any recovery proposed or effected due to change of status of the applicant on loan basis)
40. Considering the above discussions, our answer to the issues framed are the following:
SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 35 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE A.1. As the applicant could not have given an option for changing her emoluments a third time on deputation, hence, we consider the revision of her salary with effect from 01.01.2016, after 7th CPC commencement as justified, and we do not find a convincing case for the applicant in that respect. Further as the case of the applicant is covered by an undertaking given while revising her pay effective from 01.01.2016, her case is covered by the court order in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra). So her case is not saved by the lead case of Rafiq Masih and hence recovery on that count will be justified.
A.2. As we do not find clear computation of the separate amount which was proposed for recovery based on this point two, i.e., being on "loan basis" beyond 7 years of deputation, we are also not convinced that any such 7-year condition was clearly mentioned in the deputation orders given to the applicant on 2.4.2012 or in any of the deputation extension orders thereafter. Hence, in respect of any such proposed recovery, we are not convinced of the basis of such recovery and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. A.3 Yes, according to the order of this Tribunal, dated 5.7.2023 in O.A N.170/308/2021 we observe that the required show cause notice was given to the applicant, and after giving the same to the applicant SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 36 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE and giving her opportunity to respond in 10 days, the impugned order was passed. So we do not find any procedural irregularity in the impugned order as claimed by the applicant. (Further based on the lead case facts we pass a common order in all the four Original Applications as their facts are comparable and issues to be decided are identical.)
41. Considering the above, we pass the following orders:-
These Original Applications are partly allowed. The respondents are directed to reassess if they have proposed any recovery based on the forfeiture of "Deputation" benefits to the applicants beyond 7 years of their deputation, and till their repatriation. If there are any such amounts within the proposed recovery of (Rs.9,26,299/- in O.A 564/2024, Rs.12,37,011 in O.A 565/2024, Rs.12,29,510/- in O.A 566/2024 and Rs.12,46,757/- in O.A 567/2024, ), the said amounts cannot be recovered from the applicants and the same shall be returned to them forthwith, if already recovered.
This order shall be complied with expeditiously and in any event not later than 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY Bangalore 2025.10.08 VIJU 17:55:57 +05'30' 37 O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected matters /CAT/BANGALORE Accordingly, Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending, are also disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/sv/
SHAIN SHAINEY
CAT
VIJU
EY Bangalore
2025.10.08
VIJU 17:55:57
+05'30'