Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Indu Raheja vs Statistics And Programme ... on 7 October, 2025
1
Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No.232/2024
This the 07th day of October, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
lndu Raheja Retired Senior Statistical Officer (Group
'B' post) W/o Sh. Surender Kumar Raheja R/o Flat No~
51, Naveen Apartments, Opp. Sainik Vihar, Pitam Pura,
Delhi-34. Aged around 61 years
Last Posting:
Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) Sankhyaki
Bhawan, GPOA Building, CBD Shahdara, New Delhi-
32.
...Applicant
(By Advocates : Mr. Sourabh Ahuja)
Versus
1.Union of India
Through its CSI & Secretary,
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation;
Level 6, The Eastern Court, 6, East Block, Rama
Krishna Puram, New Delhi, Delhi 110066
2. DG & CEO
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation/
National Sample Survey Office Sankhyaki Bhawan,
Maharishi Balmiki Marg, GPOA Building, CBD
Shahdara, New Delhi-32.
3. Deputy Director & Head of Office/ Head of
Department Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation/ National Sample Survey Office (Field
Operation Division) Sankhyaki Bhawan, Maharishi
Balmiki Marg, GPOA Building, CBD Shahdara, New
Delhi-32.
2
Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024
4. Director Subordinate Statistical Service Division
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation
Govt of India Sardar Patel Bhawan, Sansad Marg New
Delhi-1.
5. Pay and Account Officer (Statistics) Ministry of
Statistics and Programme Implementation Room No.
23, Ground Floor, Khursheed Lal Bhawan, Janpath,
New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Annu Singh)
3
Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
"a. Declare that the impugned action of the respondents qua the Applicant is illegal, arbitrary and whimsical, whereby, they have recovered an amount of Rs. 3,62,578/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Eight only) from the Applicant within one year of her retirement/ superannuation. And b. Quash and set aside order dated 09.05.2023 and 03.07.2023 qua the applicant, whereby the respondents have recovered an amount of Rs. 3_,62,578/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred Seventy · Eight only) from the applicant and refused to waive the said amount, being violative of the layv laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masiah case. And c. Direct the respondents to revisitf rectify their action and refund an amount of Rs. 3,62,578/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Eight only) along with interest@18% per annum along with all 19 the consequential benefits (i.e. re-fixation of pay/ pension, grant of arrears etc.). And d. Call for the records. And e. Award cost in favor of the Applicant and against the respondents. And/ or f. Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favor of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits as under:- 4
Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024 2.1 He submits that the present Original
Application, challenging the impugned order dated 03.07.2023, whereby the respondents rejected the applicant's representation dated 15.05.2023, and also assailing the order dated 09.05.2023, directing recovery of an amount of ₹3,62,578/- from the applicant on account of alleged excess payment of pay and allowances. Learned counsel for the applicant only prays for limited prayer seeking directions for refund of the recovered amount along with interest and all consequential benefits.
2. 2 The applicant is a retired officer of the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. She joined service as Data Processing Assistant (DPA) on 22.04.1988 in the erstwhile Directorate of National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), and on completion of regular service and requisite qualifying period, she was promoted as Senior Statistical Officer (SSO) in Group 'B' post in due course. The applicant rendered more than 35 years of unblemished service, and there has never been any adverse remark, vigilance issue, or disciplinary proceeding initiated against her during her entire career.
5
Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024 2.3 Learned counsel submits that the applicant was
granted the benefit of "bunching of stages" in pay fixation as per the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission, vide office order dated 07.08.2017, issued by the competent authority after due verification of eligibility and administrative approval. In terms of the said order, the pay of the applicant was correctly re- fixed, and she accordingly started drawing pay in the 7th CPC Pay Matrix at Level-7. The said order was implemented in letter and spirit, and the consequential arrears were duly released to the applicant. 2.4 However, to the applicant's utter surprise, the respondents thereafter issued orders dated 28.09.2018, 08.10.2018, and 15.02.2019, whereby the earlier grant of bunching benefit was withdrawn without any prior notice, opportunity of hearing, or show cause, despite the same having been extended after due process. It is submitted that such unilateral withdrawal, made long after financial implementation, was wholly arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of natural justice. 2.5 Learned counsel further submits that the applicant was subsequently absorbed as Senior Statistical Officer (SSO) in the Subordinate Statistical 6 Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024 Service (SSS) cadre vide order dated 25.08.2020, issued by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Thereafter, without any fault or misrepresentation on her part, the respondents re-fixed her pay downward vide order dated 21.03.2023, citing revision of bunching entitlement, and consequently issued the impugned recovery order dated 09.05.2023, directing refund of ₹3,62,578/- towards alleged overpayment.
2.6 The applicant immediately represented to the competent authority on 15.05.2023, explaining that she had neither furnished any incorrect information nor played any role in the alleged overpayment, which was entirely a matter of departmental calculation. In her representation, she specifically invoked the protection extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334 = AIR 2015 SC 696, wherein it has been categorically held that recovery of excess payment from employees who are not at fault and are on the verge of retirement or have already retired, is impermissible in law.
7
Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024 2.7 Her representation also drew attention to the Department of Personnel & Training O.M. No.
18/03/2015-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 02.03.2016, as well as the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare O.M. dated 14.08.2020, both of which reiterate that recoveries in such circumstances are prohibited. 2.8 Learned counsel submits that despite the above legal position, the respondents rejected her representation vide order dated 03.07.2023, upholding the proposed recovery. The said order is wholly unreasoned, non-speaking, and mechanically passed, ignoring the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the binding departmental instructions.
2.9 It is submitted that the said rejection came barely one month prior to the applicant's superannuation. She was due to retire on 31.07.2023, but before processing of her pension papers, the respondents insisted upon recovery of the alleged overpaid amount as a precondition for release of her retiral dues. Under coercion and to avoid stoppage of retirement benefits, the applicant was forced to deposit ₹3,62,578/- on 12.07.2023, as evidenced by the challan 8 Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024 placed on record, and thereafter retired peacefully on 31.07.2023.
2.10 Learned counsel submits that the action of the respondents in effecting recovery at the fag end of the applicant's service is contrary to law, as the applicant squarely falls within the categories protected under para 12 of the DoPT O.M. dated 02.03.2016, which, while implementing the judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra), specifically stipulates that:
"No recovery shall be made from retired employees or those who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery; nor shall recovery be made in cases where the excess payment has been made for a period of more than five years before the order of recovery."
2.11 It is further submitted that this Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have consistently applied the said principle in identical circumstances. The applicant relies upon:
O.A. No. 1650/2020 - Mohinder Singh Siwach vs. UOI & Ors., decided by this Hon'ble Tribunal on 22.07.2022, wherein recovery of excess pay from a retiring employee was quashed; and 9 Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024 The said judgment having been affirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 12145/2023 decided on 19.09.2023.
2.12 The applicant also relies upon the decisions of this Tribunal in Ram Ohan Gupta vs. UOI and S.K. Singh vs. UOI, wherein similar recoveries on account of bunching or pay re-fixation were set aside, holding that the employee cannot be penalized for administrative errors.
2.13 Learned counsel emphasises that the applicant did not make any false claim or misrepresentation; the benefit was granted to her lawfully by a competent authority and was implemented after due verification.
The subsequent withdrawal, followed by recovery after several years, is manifestly unjust, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
2.14 It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders dated 09.05.2023 and 03.07.2023, directing and upholding recovery of ₹3,62,578/-, are liable to be quashed as being illegal, arbitrary, and in contravention of the law laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra), the DoPT O.M. dated 02.03.2016, and the DoP&PW O.M. dated 10 Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024 14.08.2020. The applicant is entitled to refund of the recovered amount with interest, along with all consequential benefits, including restoration of her pay fixation as originally granted vide order dated 07.08.2017.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the grant of relief and reiterates the averments made in the counter affidavit. She places reliance upon the Office Order dated 15.02.2019 on the subject "Implementation of the direction issued by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal vide its judgment dated 16.11.2018 in the matter of OA No. 4250/2018 and MA No. 4800/2018 filed by Shri V.K. Sharma and Ors. vs. Union of India."
3.1 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present Original Application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold. The applicant has not approached this Hon'ble Tribunal with clean hands and has suppressed material facts which go to the root of the matter.
3.2 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant has challenged the recovery of an amount of ₹3,62,578/- made from her towards excess 11 Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024 payment on account of the "bunching" benefit and has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014, decided on 18.12.2014 (Annexure R-6). However, the said reliance is wholly misplaced and untenable both in law and on facts.
3.3 She submits that the benefit of bunching was initially extended to the applicant vide Office Memorandum No. A-48011/5/ND (Misc.)/DPD Ad. II/17-18 dated 07.08.2017 (Annexure R-1). Subsequently, upon examination of the legal position and pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 4250/2018 and MA No. 4800/2018, the said benefit was withdrawn within two years, vide OM No. C-
18011/1/CAT/VKS&Ors/Delhi/2018-CSW dated 15.02.2019 (Annexure R-2), issued in consultation with the nodal ministries. This withdrawal was further scrutinised and affirmed by NITI Aayog and the Internal Audit Wing of MoSPI vide Order dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure R-4).
12
Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024 3.4 Consequently, vide Order No. G- 27022/02/2018/DPA-II/E-V dated 09.05.2023
(Annexure R-5), the applicant was directed to refund the excess amount of ₹3,62,578/-, which she duly deposited. It is significant to note that the recovery was ordered within two years of the grant of the benefit and pertains largely to payments made within the preceding five years of the recovery order. The applicant, being a Group 'B' Gazetted Officer, was well aware of the process of pay fixation and, therefore, cannot claim any special equity.
3.5 Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih is not applicable to the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out five specific categories where recovery is impermissible. The applicant does not fall within any of these categories. She is neither a Class III nor a Class IV employee; the excess payment is not older than five years preceding the recovery order; and the recovery cannot be characterised as harsh, arbitrary or iniquitous, considering her position as a Senior Statistical Officer and the quantum involved. The respondents have 13 Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024 merely implemented the Government's instructions in their true letter and spirit, as required by law. 3.6 She further submits that the applicant's absorption into the Subordinate Statistical Service was effected vide Order No. 12028/03/2020-SSS dated 25.08.2020 (Annexure R-3), and she superannuated from service on 31.07.2023. The recovery was effected prior to her retirement, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and orders. There is no disciplinary proceeding against her; the issue pertains solely to pay fixation and the recovery of excess payments.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. A reference has been drawn to the fact that the benefit was granted to the applicant with effect from 01.01.2006 vide order dated 07.08.2017. It is also not in dispute that the recovery was sought to be made without issuance of any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, and that no disciplinary or departmental proceedings have ever been initiated against her in connection with the grant or drawal of the said benefit. The record further indicates that the recovery was effected just prior to the 14 Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024 applicant's superannuation, on the basis of a subsequent re-fixation order passed by the respondents, treating the earlier fixation as erroneous. 4.1 From the pleadings, it is evident that the applicant had neither made any misrepresentation nor furnished any incorrect information leading to the grant of the said benefit. The payment was made pursuant to a conscious administrative decision of the competent authority, duly implemented by the department. The respondents have also not disputed that the applicant had no role in the fixation of her pay, and that the recovery was ordered several years after the benefit was extended.
4.2 In such circumstances, the action of the respondents in effecting recovery at the fag end of service, without notice or opportunity, and after lapse of several years, is contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334, as also reiterated in the DoPT O.M. dated 02.03.2016 and the DoP&PW O.M. dated 14.08.2020, which prohibit recoveries from employees who are due 15 Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024 to retire or have retired, particularly when no misrepresentation or fraud is attributable to them. 4.3 In Civil Appeal No(s). 1635 Of 2013 JAGDISH PRASAD SINGH VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS decided on 08.08.2024, the Apex Court observed as under:-
"24. Recently, this Court in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and Others, held that the State cannot recover excess amount paid to the ex-employee after the delay of 10 years.
25. The Government Resolution dated 8th February, 1999 to be specific, the highlighted portion supra is amenable to the interpretation that it protects the status and pay of those employees who had received their time bound promotions prior to 31st December, 1995. As a consequence, the Secretary concerned, while rejecting the representation clearly misinterpreted and misapplied the said Resolution to the detriment of the appellant.
26. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna also seem to have fallen in the same error. In addition thereto, we are of the view that any step of reduction in the pay scale and recovery from a Government employee would tantamount to a punitive action because the same has drastic civil as well as evil consequences. Thus, no such action could have been taken against the appellant, more particularly, because hehad been promoted as an ADSO, while drawing the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 applicable to the post, way back on 10th March, 1991 and had also superannuated eight years ago before the recovery notice dated 15th April, 2009 was issued. The impugned action directing reduction of pay scale and recovery of the excess amount is grossly arbitrary and illegal and also suffers from the vice of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice and hence, the same cannot be sustained.
27. The order dated 8th October, 2009 passed by the State Government directing reduction in the pay scale of the appellant from Rs.6500-10500 to Rs.5500-9000 16 Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024 w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 and directing recovery of the excess amount from him is grossly illegal and arbitrary and is hereby quashed and set aside. The impugned order dated 27th August, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court does not stand to scrutiny and is hereby quashed. Therefore, the appellant shall continue to receive the pension in accordance with the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500.
28. In case, if any reduction in pension and consequential recovery was effected on account of the impugned orders, the appellant shall be entitled to the restoration/reimbursement thereof with interest as applicable.
29. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No order as to costs."
4.4 We, therefore, are of the considered view that the recovery effected from the applicant, amounting to ₹3,62,578/-, is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount to the applicant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
5. It is further directed that such refund shall carry interest at the GPF rate applicable from time to time, if the payment is not made within the stipulated period, till the date of actual payment.
6. The respondents shall also ensure that the applicant's retiral benefits, if withheld or reduced on account of the said recovery, are revised and released 17 Item No.119/ C-III O.A. No.232/2024 accordingly in terms of her original pay fixation as per order dated 07.08.2017.
7. The OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending MAs, if any, shall also dispose of accordingly.
8. No order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sm/