Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Anamika Singh vs Banaras Locomotive Works on 1 August, 2025
Reserved on 24.07.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad
th
This the 01 day of August, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 613 of 2014
Anil Kumar S/O Late Sri Ram Kumar Awasthi, R/O 884/116 D Block Word
Bank Colony Barra Kanpur.
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri A. D. Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Defence New Delhi.
2. General Manager, Ordnance Equipment Factory Fool Bag Kanpur
208001.
3. Work Manager (Admin.) Ordnance Equipment Factory Fool Bag
Kanpur 208001.
4. Senior Accounts Officer (FYS) Ordnance Equipment Factory Fool
Bag Kanpur 208001.
5. Deputy General Manager (Admin.) Ordnance Equipment Factory Fool
Bag Kanpur 208001.
6. Works Manager Cash/L.B. Ordnance Equipment Factory Fool Bag
Kanpur 208001
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Anoop Tiwari
1
ASHISH KUMAR
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Heard Shri A. D. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anoop Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
"i) quash and set a side the impugned orders dated 05.02.2014, 11.04.2014 and 12.04.2014 passed by respondents No. 3, 4 & 6 (shown as Annexure No. A-1, A-2 and A-3 to this Original Application in Compilation No. I.).
ii). directing the respondents to restore the upgradation of Rs.
2800/- of the applicant and be retire the applicant on due date 31.05.2014 in the grade pay Rs. 2800/- and to pay all the retrial benefits according to the grade pay of Rs. 2800/.
iii). directing the respondents to refund the recovered amount to the applicant with 18% interest per annum.
iv). directing the respondents to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was involved in criminal case by private person due to enmity and was arrested by police on 21.12.1997 and subsequently released on bail. He rejoined the duty on 03.06.1998 and thereafter he got promotion vide letter no. 263 dated 29.11.1999 in pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 as Machinist H. S. grade-II. The applicant was granted first upgradation under MACP-I in the grade pay of Rs. 2400/- w.e.f. 01.07.2006 vide office letter dated 28.04.2009. He was granted upgradation in the grade pay of Rs. 2800/- w.e.f. 01.09.2008 under MACP-II vide office order dated 30.11.2010. The applicant retired from service on 31.05.2014. He was given a show cause notice on dated 13.01.2014 for cancellation of his financial upgradation with a direction to submit his reply within five days. The applicant submitted his reply in a letter dated 16.01.2014. Rejecting the explanation given by the applicant, respondents have issued letters dated 05.02.2014 and 11.04.2014 by which 2 ASHISH KUMAR letter they have issued direction to recover the excess amount paid to the applicant which is Rs: 399197/- from the pay of the applicant.
4. We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the parties.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that as applicant was released on bail, till date he was not convicted, got the benefit of financial upgradation under relevant rules and prescribed procedures, the respondents have illegally directed the applicant to deposit the whole amount of Rs: 399197/-. The order has been passed by incompetent authority without application of mind and without considering the facts available on record. He further submitted that recovery has been started from the applicant at the rate of Rs:10000/- per month from January-2014 which is illegal. Hence, O.A. be allowed and order dated 05.02.2014 and 11.04.2014 as well as 12.04.2014 passed by the respondents should be quashed and authority be directed to restore the upgradation of his pay and also to refund the recovered amount with interest.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly refuted the above submissions by way of counter affidavit and submitted that as applicant was in police custody/jail from 21.12.1997 to 06.08.1998 in criminal case no. (BA/1046/98)-1017/97. The various sections under which he was arrested were:-
i) Section 406- Punishment for criminal breach
ii) Section 504- Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
iii). Section 506- Punishment for criminal intimidation
iv) Section 364- Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder
v) Section 420- Cheating/dishonesty inducing delivery of property.
7. Respondents counsel further submitted that it is the duty of the government servant to intimate the official superiors of the criminal cases pending or convicted against him which applicant has failed to do so. He was granted MACP benefits erroneously. When pending criminal cases against the applicant came to the notice of the competent authority amongst 3 ASHISH KUMAR respondents a show cause notice was issued, a reply was received from the applicant and competent authority has gone into the merits of the explanation and it was found devoid of merits and hence the pay of the applicant was refixed and excess amount paid was calculated and an order was passed to recover the amount Rs. 399197/- from the pay of the applicant. He further submitted that an amount of Rs. 359910/- has already been recovered from the individual and Rs. 39287/- is still to be recovered. It is also submitted that as per the DOP&T letter no. 35034/3/2008-Estt (D) dated 19.05.2009, all promotional norms have to be followed for granting MACP. The action of the respondents are strictly in accordance with norms fixed by the DOPT for granting MACP, the applicant was given opportunity by way of issuance of show cause notice which he was also replied and after considering his reply it was found that his reply is not satisfactory, hence refixation of pay of applicant was done in accordance with the relevant rules. Hence there is no illegality in the order and order has been passed by the competent authority after application of his mind, Accordingly, O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire records.
9. Before discussing the submissions advanced across the BAR, It will be useful to quote the relevant portion of the DOP&T letter no. 35034/3/2008-Estt (D) dated 19.05.2009 dealing with the grant of the MACP, which is as under:-
18. ln the matter of disciplinary/ penalty proceedings, grant of benefit under the MACPS shall be subject to rules governing normal promotion. Such cases shall, therefore, be regulated under the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and instructions issued thereunder.
10. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention here the judgment and order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Samba Moorthy Vs. Sanjiv Chandha & ors., SLP © no. 10245 of 2024, in which the relevant portion (para 18) is as under:-
4ASHISH KUMAR Learned counsel contends that no contempt is made out, since two interpretations were possible and hence the action of the respondents cannot be held as contumacious. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of Govt of West Bengal & Ors, vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & ors, (2024 INSC 906) to contend the promotion becomes effective on assumption of duties and since the appellant has superannuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits.
11. After considering the rival submissions of the parties and perusal of the records, it is evident that the applicant was involved in a criminal case and remained under custody from 21.12.1997 to 06.08.1998. The relevant MACP Scheme, as per DOP&T O.M. dated 19.05.2009, clearly stipulates that grant of MACP benefits is subject to the same norms applicable for normal promotion, and disciplinary/criminal proceedings dis-entitle an employee from such financial upgradations. At this stage, it is significant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Samba Moorthy vs. Sanjiv Chandra & Ors., SLP (C) No. 10245 of 2024, para 18, wherein it was categorically held that when two interpretations are possible, and the benefit has been erroneously granted without due consideration of pending proceedings, retrospective withdrawal and recovery of such benefit cannot be termed illegal. In the present case, the MACP benefits were erroneously granted to the applicant without taking into account the pendency of criminal proceedings, and upon detection of the error, due process was followed by issuance of show cause notice, consideration of reply, and consequent refixation of pay and recovery of excess payment. The recovery action being in accordance with rules and judicial precedents, no illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned orders dated 05.02.2014, 11.04.2014 and 12.04.2014. Accordingly, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit. O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
12. All associated M.As also stand disposed of.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ashish)
5
ASHISH KUMAR