Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Rajshekar Auradkar vs 515 Army Base Work Shop on 23 February, 2026
1
OA.No.170/00357/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00357/2025
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Rajshekar Auradkar
S/o Sharanappa Auradkar
Aged about 63 years
Retired Toolmaker HS I
515, Army Base Workshop
Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008
R/a No. 51, 'Basavachetana',
Defence Colony
Kanakappa Layout, Medahalli
Bangalore 560 049 .... Applicant
(By Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar, Advocate)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Represented by Secretary to Government
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, DHQ PO
New Delhi 110 011
2. The Director General of EME
Integrated HQ of MOD (Army)
Ministry of Defence
DHQ PO, New Delhi 110 011
KAVYA
SHREE K
KAVYA
CAT, Bangalore
SHREE K
2026.03.02
17:40:44+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00357/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Commandant & Managing Director
515 Army Base Work Shop
Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008
4. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts
No. 107, Lower Agram Road
Agram Post
Bangalore 560 007
5. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts
Draupadi Ghat, Sadar Bazar
Saraswati Vihar colony, Ashok Nagar
Prayagraj 211 001 (UP) .... Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Senior Panel Counsel)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal
(b) Declare that the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,75,301 from the gratuity of the applicant as illegal and direct its payment along with interest from the date of recovery till the date of repayment
(c) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs of this OA for having driven a retired Group C employee for initiating an avoidable litigation, in the interests of justice."
KAVYA SHREE K KAVYA CAT, Bangalore SHREE K 2026.03.02 17:40:44+05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00357/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the applicant who was appointed as temporary Turner on 24.08.1987 in the Defence Department was promoted to the grade of Highly Skilled (HS) Grade II with effect from 15.06.1992. Pursuant to the grant of Vth Central Pay Commission scales, the pay of the applicant was revised with effect from 01.01.1996. The applicant was remustered to the trade of Toolmaker with effect from 25.11.1997 in the same scale of pay of Rs. 4000-6000. The applicant was granted 2nd MACP with effect from 01.09.2008 and further promoted to Highly Skilled Grade I in the grade pay of Rs. 2800/- with effect from 21.08.2014 and was also granted 3rd MACP in the pay level 6 with effect from 24.08.2017 on completion of 30 years of service. The applicant superannuated from government service (515 Army Base Workshop, Ulsoor, Bengaluru 560008) in the grade of Toolmaker (HS II) which is a Group C post. In the Pension Payment Order, his last pay drawn was shown as Rs. 56,900/- and average pay for last 10 months was shown as Rs. 56,560/-. Respondent No. 3 forwarded a copy of the letter dated 01.08.2022 issued by Respondent No. 4 on 05.08.2022 wherein it was proposed to recover a sum of Rs. 2,75,301/- from the applicant while processing the pension claim. Requests were made for refund of the recovered amount and to set right the last pay drawn and KAVYA SHREE K KAVYA CAT, Bangalore SHREE K 2026.03.02 17:40:44+05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00357/2025/CAT/BANGALORE average pay wrongly shown in the PPO. Not being responded with his oral request, a letter dated 24.01.2023 was addressed by the applicant praying for expediting his case for the refund of the deducted amount followed by the reminders. On 05.08.2024, Respondent No. 4 sent a letter to Respondent No. 3 forwarding the due drawn statement of the applicant and noted that refixation of pay of the applicant has been audited and verified and payment of Rs. 1,23,738/- is payable. Accordingly, a Corrigendum PPO dated 29.01.2025 was issued revising the pay in pay matrix to Rs. 60,400/-. It is the grievance of the applicant that the amount of Rs. 2,75,301/- recovered towards excess amount paid has been retained. Hence, this OA.
3. Learned counsel Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar representing the applicant submitted that the recovery of Rs. 2,75,301/- made by the respondents illegally from a retired Group C employee at the time of settlement of his retiral benefits relating to the period from 1997 till 2022 is unjustifiable. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and KAVYA SHREE K KAVYA CAT, Bangalore SHREE K 2026.03.02 17:40:44+05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00357/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 as well as the OM dated 02.03.2016 issued by the DOPT.
4. Learned counsel Shri Vishnu Bhat representing the respondents submitted that as per the first PPO, a sum of Rs. 2,75,301/- has been recovered from the applicant's retirement gratuity. In furtherance of the representation of the applicant, necessary due drawn statement has been prepared and a sum of Rs. 1,23,738/- has been paid to the applicant. Necessary Corrigendum PPO has been issued vide PPO dated 29.01.2025 correcting the last pay drawn and the average pay for 10 months. The excess amount of Rs. 2,75,301/- paid has been recovered from the Gratuity amount of the applicant after drawing due drawn statement and any waiver of recovery of excess amount is within the purview of DOPT. No waiver of recovery being ordered, recovery action of the applicant cannot be found fault with.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. KAVYA SHREE K KAVYA CAT, Bangalore SHREE K 2026.03.02 17:40:44+05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00357/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
6. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs. 2,75,301/- has been deducted from the first PPO from the retirement Gratuity of the applicant towards excess amount paid/over issue of pay and allowances. Indisputably the applicant is a 'C' Group employee. On the representation submitted by the applicant regarding the recovery from the retirement Gratuity as well as the mistake in the last pay drawn accrued in the PPO, by issuing the corrigendum PPO the pay in the pay matrix has been revised but the demand of Rs. 2,75,301/- and the demand type - over issue of pay is retained. It is well-settled that no recovery from employees belonging to Group 'C' is permissible that too at the time of settlement of retiral Gratuity and when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of 5 years, before the order of recovery is issued.
7. In this regard, OM dated 02.03.2016 has been issued by the DOPT considering the case of Rafiq Masih, supra, which postulates thus:
"4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while observing that it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement has summarized the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law:-
KAVYA SHREE K KAVYA CAT, Bangalore SHREE K 2026.03.02 17:40:44+05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00357/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
(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.
........................."
8. The legal principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih, supra, has been reiterated in Thomas Daniel, supra. Further, it has been observed that it is not contended by the State that on account of misrepresentation or fraud played by the applicant therein the excess amount has been paid. Even in the present case, no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud played by the applicant is made. Wrong promotions given by the respondents on a mistaken notion has been set right, thus, the present case certainly comes within the ambit of the situation summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to supra. Moreover, such recovery action is not preceded by following the principles of natural justice.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, recovery from the retirement Gratuity of the applicant is wholly unsustainable and cannot be approved. Hence, the following:
KAVYA SHREE K KAVYA CAT, Bangalore SHREE K 2026.03.02 17:40:44+05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00357/2025/CAT/BANGALORE :ORDER:
1) Recovery of sum of Rs. 2,75,301/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Three Hundred and One Only) from the retirement Gratuity of the applicant is illegal, and accordingly, the respondents are directed to refund the said amount of Rs. 2,75,301/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Three Hundred and One Only) to the applicant forthwith.
2) Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner, in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
3) OA stands disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ksk/
KAVYA
SHREE K
KAVYA
CAT, Bangalore
SHREE K
2026.03.02
17:40:44+05'30'