Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mukesh Kumar Tyagi vs Govt. Of Nctd on 3 December, 2025
1
Item No. 49(C-V)
O.A. No.2446/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2446/2019
M.A. No.2666/2019
Order reserved on : 04.11.2025
Order pronounced on : 03.12.2025
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
1. Sh. Mukesh Kumar Tyagi (Group 'B')
Section Officer
S/o Sh. Dharamvir Singh Tyagi
Aged about 51 years
R/o H.No. 110, Raj Gali
West Babarpur, Shahdara
Delhi-110032
2. Smt. Meenu Taneja (Group 'B')
Section Officer,
W/o Sh. Sanjay Taneja
Aged about 52 years
R/o B-2, 119, 2nd Floor, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063
...Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri Nilansh Gaur)
Versus
1. Govt of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
4th Level, A-wing, Delhi Secretariat
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002
2. Finance Department
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Secretary (Finance)
4th Level, A-wing, Delhi Secretariat
I.P. Estate. New Delhi-110002
3. Services Department
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
2
Item No. 49(C-V)
O.A. No.2446/2019
Through its Secretary (Services)
4th Level, A-wing, Delhi Secretariat
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002
4. State Council of Educational
Research and Training (SCERT)
Through its Chairman of
Executive Committee/Secretary (Education)
Deptt. of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat, New Delhi.
5. The Director
State Council of Educational Research
and Training (SCERT)
Varun Marg, Defence Colony
New Delhi-110024
6. District Institute of Education
and Training (DIET),
Rajinder Nagar
Through its Principal
B-4/15, Old Rajinder Nagar
New Delhi-110060
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Amit Yadav)
3
Item No. 49(C-V)
O.A. No.2446/2019
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-
The present O.A. has been filed by the applicants, who are two in number, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s):-
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned orders at Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2 and further direct the respondents to restore the non functional scale i.e. Rs.8,000-13,500 granted to the applicants with all consequential benefits including arrears with interest admissible as per law;
and
(b) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal thinks fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs."
2. The brief factual matrix of the case as detailed by the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants were granted Non-Functional Grade (NFG) on 14.06.2007 w.e.f. 21.07.2003 (Annexure-A/5) in respect of applicant No.1 and on 07.01.2008 w.e.f. 10.12.2007 (Annexure-A/6) in respect of applicant No.2 (pages 31 and 32 of the paper book). However, the respondents, by order dated 02.07.2019 and 4 Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019 03.07.2019 (Annexures A1 and A2), have withdrawn the Non-Functional Grade earlier granted to the applicants.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants stated that the withdrawal of the benefit already granted long back in the year 2007, after a lapse of nearly 12 years, has significantly affected the financial status of the applicants and it will also adversely impact the pension amount payable to them upon retirement.
4. It is further submitted that a show-cause notice was issued to the applicants, to which they submitted a reply. However, the said reply is not on record. The respondents thereafter passed the impugned orders dated 02.07.2019 and 03.07.2019, withdrawing the Non-Functional Grade earlier sanctioned in the year 2007. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the applicants have filed the present OA, seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
5. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the impugned orders dated 02.07.2019 and 03.07.2019 are blatantly illegal. He referred to the notification dated 07.12.1999, wherein the Executive Committee of the SCERT (respondent body) decided 5 Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019 that the terms and conditions of service of non- academic staff of SCERT, Delhi, shall be the same as those applicable to the employees of the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi. The said notification dated 07.12.1999, reads as under:-
"In exercise of the powers conferred under Regulations 43 to 49 of Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of SCERT and as per the decision of the Executive Committee of the Council in its meeting held on 1.12.99, the existing provisions under Regulation 67 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations of the Council are hereby substituted with the following provisions with immediate effect :-
"The terms and tenure of service of Academic and other staff of the Council should remain the same as available for the Academic and other staff of the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi with such modifications that may be specifically adopted by the Executive Committee from time to time."
6. Therefore, the withdrawal of the Non-Functional Grade on the ground that the respondents had not obtained approval from Department of Finance for granting such a grade is contrary to the said decision of SCERT dated 07.12.1999.
7. It is further submitted that SCERT is an autonomous body and it does not require approval 6 Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019 from the Finance Department for granting service benefits to its employees. Once the SCERT has taken a decision to extend similar benefits to its employees as are available to identically placed employees of the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, such decision is valid and binding.
8. The learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. Vs. V.K. Sodhi & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3272 of 2003, decided on 14.08.2007, particularly paragraphs 14 and 15 thereof, which read as under:-
"14. As we understand it, even going by paragraph 40 of the judgment in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra), which we have quoted above, we have to consider the cumulative effect of all the facts available in the case. So considered, we are inclined to hold that SCERT is not a State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As we see it, the High Court has not independently discussed the relevant rules governing the functioning and administration of SCERT. It has proceeded on the basis that in the face of Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra) decision, the decision in Chander Mohan Khanna (supra) must be taken to be overruled and no further discussion of the question is necessary. But, in our view, even going by Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra), each case has to be considered with reference to the facts available for determining whether the body concerned is a State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of 7 Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019 India. So considered, we find that the Government does not have deep and pervasive control over the working of SCERT. It does not have financial control in the sense that once the finances are made available to it, the administration of those finances is left to SCERT and there is no further governmental control. In this situation, we accept the submission on behalf of the appellants and hold that SCERT is not a State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. After all, the very formation of an independent society under the Societies Registration Act would also suggest that the intention was not to make the body a mere appendage of the State.
We reverse the finding of the High Court on this aspect.
15. Once we hold that SCERT is not a State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, we do not find ourselves persuaded to issue any such direction as sought for by the writ petitioners (the respondents herein). In fact, it becomes unnecessary to go into the question of validity of the amendment of Regulation 87, the effect of the uniform non implementation of Regulation 67 as it stood earlier, and the effect of the absence of a challenge in the writ petition to the amendment to the Regulation itself. It is also not necessary to go into the question whether SCERT should seek the permission of the Government for incurring additional expenditure in terms of service benefits to its employees."
9. In the above decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, it was held that SCERT need not seek approval from the Government for every administrative decision. 8 Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019 Therefore, the decision of SCERT dated 07.02.1999 to grant the Non-Functional Grade to its employees is perfectly legitimate.
10. The learned counsel also referred to the order dated 02.01.2025 in O.A. No. 820/2024 titled Kirpal Singh Bist Vs. SCERT & Ors., particularly paragraph 4.1, wherein the Tribunal held that withdrawal of the Non-Functional Grade and recovery of the corresponding amounts were illegal. In that case, the Tribunal directed the respondents to refund the amount already recovered from the applicants. The learned counsel submitted that the present case is identical to that of OA No.820/2024, and, therefore, the recovery made by the respondents should also be declared illegal.
11. Pursuant to notice, the respondents filed their reply opposing the OA. Learned counsel for the respondents, relying on the counter-affidavit, submitted that the order dated 14.06.2007 granting the Non-Functional Grade to the applicants was issued without approval from the competent authority. The audit authorities, during financial audit, observed that the said benefit had been 9 Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019 extended without due approval from the Finance Department, Government of NCT of Delhi. Subsequently, the Service Department referred the matter to the Finance Department for approval, but the Finance Department twice rejected the proposal to grant Non-Functional Grade to the employees similarly placed as the present applicants. Accordingly, the respondents withdrew the Non- Functional Grade earlier granted by order dated 14.06.2007.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents distinguished the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3272/2003, stating that the facts and circumstances prevailing in that case are significantly different from those obtaining in the present case.
13. He further averred that the present case relates to the extension of service benefits applicable to Government employees being extended to the employees of SCERT. It is pointed out that in O.A. No. 820/2024, no show-cause notices were issued to the affected employees before recovery was made, whereas, in the instant case, the respondents had 10 Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019 issued notices to the applicants prior to the passing of the impugned order.
14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Our Analysis 15.1 It is understood that State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) is an autonomous body established in the year 1988 as a Society registered under the Society Registration Act. It is a nodal agency recognized by the National Council of Teacher Education for admission, curriculum construction, course conduct, guidance, examination and certification of pre-service training programme in the area of pre-primary teacher education and elementary education. SCERT also provides necessary guidance towards effective functioning of nine District Institutes of Education Training (DIET) of Delhi. The applicants, in support of their contention, has relied upon the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.820/2020 titled as Kirpal Singh Bist Vs. SCERT & Ors.
11Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019 15.2 On perusal of factual aspects narrated in the said order of this Tribunal, it is understood that the respondents have withdrawn the pay scale granted to the applicant of the said OA without issuing any Show Cause Notice to him and ordered to recover the excess payment amount. However, in the instant OA, the respondents had issued a Show Cause Notice to the applicant No.1 in the form of a Memorandum dated 15.05.2018 to submit a reason as to why Non Functional Selection Grade already granted to him vide order dated 14.07.2007 should not be withdrawn and his pay be reduced accordingly, and over payment should not be recovered from him. The applicant No.1 has submitted his response to the said Show Cause Notice and thereafter the respondents have taken a decision to withdraw the Non Functional Selection Grade and ordered to recover the excess payment. 15.3 As the factual matrix in the instant OA is different to the one in OA No. 820/2024 decided on 02.01.2025, thus, the present OA has to be decided in accordance with the existing factual position. 12 Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019 15.4 The applicants have also relied upon the judgment dated 06.12.2013 passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos.2383/2013, 2506/2013 and 7349/2013. It is understood that all the three Writ Petitions were arising out of the order dated 17.04.2012 passed by this Tribunal. Writ Petition No.2383/2013 and Writ Petition No.2506/2013 were filed by the SCERT and Others whereas WP(C) No.7349/2013 was filled by the employee of the SCERT. The Hon‟ble High Court has dismissed Writ Petition 2383/2013 and Writ Petition No. 2506/2013 i.e. Writ Petitions so filed by the SCERT and allowed the Writ Petition No.7349/2013 with directions to the respondents to place Senior Lecturers in DIET in PB-3 with Grade Pay of Rs.7600. Perusal of para 38 of the said judgment, makes it clear that the Finance Department has shown its disagreement with the upgradation of pay of Senior Lecturers from the Grade Pay of Rs.6600 to Rs.7600, however, no reason has been given by the Finance Department at the time of showing their disagreement to the proposal of the Department. It is also noted from para 35 of the said judgement that the proposal 13 Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019 was having approval of Minister of Education, Principal Secretary (Education) and Director, SCERT. In the present case, Finance Department has given their specific reasons not to concur with the proposal of the SCERT, as mentioned in para 4.9 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the instant OA and the Finance Department observed that "the service department vide circulated dated 21.10.2016 has clarified that Order No.56, 57 and 58 dated 03.02.2015 are exclusively for DASS Cadre and Steno Cadre employees which are organised cadres of the GNCTD and are not applicable to the staff of PSUs/Local Bodies/GIA Institutes etc.". It is also observed that the Director SCERT has taken a decision to grant NFSG to the applicants on its own and has not taken approval of the Hon‟ble Minister or consult the Finance Department at the time to grant it to the applicants.
15.5 In view of the above, it is observed that the judgment dated 06.12.2013 of the Hon‟ble High Court is basing upon the specific facts and circumstances mentioned therein i.e. no reason was given by the Finance Department at the time on its disagreement, 14 Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019 the stage of approval to grant the pay benefit. Thus, the present OA needs to be decided in accordance with the facts and circumstances involved therein.
16. The Service Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi informed the Finance Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated 21.10.2016 that orders No.56, 57 and 58 dated 03.02.2015 issued by the service department are exclusively for DASS/Steno Grade-I, II and III, which are organised cadre of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and are not applicable to autonomous bodies like SCERT by virtue of its issuance. From this, it is understood that if SCERT intends to employ similar pay scale structure to its employees, it is required to examine said proposal holistically after taking into consideration certain aspects i.e. pay scale of both cadre posts in corresponding of various Pay Commissions; Duties and responsibilities of both the cadre posts; mode of recruitment and Hierarchy of posts of the department etc.
17. It is understood that the Department of Finance has provided the reasons to not to agree with the proposal of the SCERT and the SCERT in 15 Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019 agreement with the Finance Department had issued order dated 02.07.2019 (Annexure-A/1) with respect to the applicant No.2 i.e. Smt. Meenu Taneja and order dated 03.07.2019 (Annexure-A/2) with respect to applicant No.1 i.e. Shri Mukesh Kumar Tyagi for withdrawal of NFSG so granted to them on 10.12.2007.
18. Perusal of orders dated 02.01.2020 issued by the Deputy Director/HOO of SCERT on the subject of 'recovery on account of withdrawal of NFS' in respect of Mukesh Kumar Tyagi‟ vide U.No.89, SCERT/Admn/Prom/05/16825 and in respect of Ms. Meenu Taneja vide U.No.89, SCERT/Admn/Prom/05/16826, indicate that respondent - SCERT has ordered to make recovery of amount of Rs.10,04,732/- from salary of Shri Mukesh Kumar Tyagi @ Rs.24000/- per month in equal 41 instalments and one instalment of Rs.20,732/- respectively whereas it has been ordered to make recovery of amount of Rs.6,33,914/- from the salary of Ms. Meenu Taneja @ Rs.24000 per month in 26 equal instalments and one instalment of Rs.9914/- respectively.
16Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019
19. It is understood that the applicants in the OA have requested to restrain the respondents from making recovery from them. The OA was filed in the year 2019 and the order of recovery was issued on 02.01.2020 whereby the recovery of excess amount i.e. Rs.10,04,732 from Shri Mukesh Kumar Tyagi and Rs.6,33,914/- from Ms. Meenu Taneja was ordered. It is noted that the orders dated 02.01.2020 are the consequential effect of Annexure-A/1 i.e. the order dated 02.07.2019 issued with respect to Ms. Meenu Taneja and order dated 03.07.2019 (Annexure-A/2) issued with respect to Shri Mukesh Kumar Tyagi, the applicants in the OA.
20. It is admitted fact that the financial discipline has to be maintained amongst the department as public exchequer is not to be adversely affected and to grant a parity of pay is a policy decision involving the financial policy decision in the matter. Therefore, we do not find any apparent error in the orders dated 02.07.2019 (Annexure-A/1) and 03.07.2019 (Annexure-A/2) and, thus, we are not inclined to interfere in the said decision of the SCERT which was taken in consultation with the Department of Finance 17 Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019 etc. In view of this, the prayer made in para 8(i) of OA is liable to be rejected.
21. The relevant paras 4 and 5 of the DOP&T OM dated 02.03.2016 read as under :-
"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:-
(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.18
Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019
5. The matter has, consequently, been examined in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and the Department of Legal Affairs. The Ministries / Departments are advised to deal with the issue of wrongful / excess payments made to Government servants in accordance with above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No.11527 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No.11684 of 2012) in State of Punjab and others etc vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. However, wherever the waiver of recovery in the above-mentioned situations is considered, the same may be allowed with the express approval of Department of Expenditure in terms of this Department's OM No.18/26/2011-Estt (Pay-I) dated 6th February, 2014.
22. It is admitted fact that the applicants have neither mis-represented nor committed any fraud to obtain the NFSG and the Director of SCERT has passed the order to grant NFSG to the applicants. The order of NFSG was passed in the year 2007-08 whereas Show Cause Notice to the recovery was made more than 10 years after grant of NFSG and finally the recovery was ordered on 02.01.2020 i.e. about 12 years after the grant of NFSG. The case of the applicants is squarely covered under the circumstances mentioned in para 4(iii) of OM dated 02.03.2016 so issued by the DOP&T i.e. „recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made 19 Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019 for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.'
23. From the above, we are reached on conclusion that the impugned orders dated 02.01.2020, whereby recovery of said excess amount paid to the applicants was ordered, are not legally sustained as the same are against the policy of the Government, thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
24. In view of the above, the orders dated 02.01.2020 passed by the respondents are set aside and the OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to make any recovery from the applicants. The respondents are further directed to refund the entire recovered amount to the applicants, if any recovery has been made by the respondents from the applicants, in pursuance to the orders dated 02.01.2020.
25. This order shall be complied with within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
20Item No. 49(C-V) O.A. No.2446/2019
26. All pending MA(s), if any, are also stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
'rk'