Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
M Nirmala Rani Since Deceased Rpt By Her ... vs Deptt Of Electronics Information ... on 16 October, 2025
1
O.A.No.170/00536/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.170/00536/2024
Dated this the 16th day of October 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
M.Nirmala Rani,
Since deceased, by her husband,
Bartholomew Abraham,
Aged 65 years, residing at 4,
Linden Street, Austin Town,
Bengaluru-560 047. ...... 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,
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2025.10.21
12:50:32+05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/00536/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
Behind Kali Mandir, Gole Market,
New Delhi-110001.
4. The Deputy Director General (Admn),
UIDAI Technology Centre,
Aadhaar Complex,
NTI Layout,
Tata Nagar, Kodigehalli,
Bengaluru-560 092. ......Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri.N.Amaresh for Respondent No.2 and Shri.Vishnu
Bhat for Respondent Nos.1,3 and 4)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, claiming the following reliefs:
"(i) To direct the respondents to make payment of Rs.17,19,756/-and other benefits, if any, illegally withheld from the terminal benefits due to the deceased employee with interest at 18% per annum from 01.01.2016 till the date of actual payment and
(ii) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The reliefs are claimed based on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(i) to 5(iii) of the Original Application. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the synopsis are that the applicant, working in BSNL, was deputed to UIDAI to work as Principal Senior System Analyst. She took charge of the post on 16.01.2013. The deputation was SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.10.21 12:50:32+05'30' 3 O.A.No.170/00536/2024/CAT/BANGALORE for 3 years initially, which was extended till 31.08.2021. Her pay was fixed in IDA scale on her option. 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.
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. Thereafter, the applicant challenged the order of re-fixation of her pay before this Tribunal in OA/170/307/2021. This Tribunal allowed OA/170/307/2021 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. In the meantime, the applicant expired. Now the respondent No.4 issued an order dated 27.08.2024 to the husband of the applicant directing him to remit Rs.17,19,756/-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 relief. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.10.21 12:50:32+05'30' 4 O.A.No.170/00536/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
4. On notice, the respondent nos.1,3 and 4 have filed their reply statement to the O.A and reply statement for respondent no.2 has been filed separately. No rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the applicant.
5. The case came up for final hearing on 16.10.2025. Shri.A.R.Holla for the applicant, Shri.N.Amaresh for respondent No.2 and Shri.Vishnu Bhat for Respondent Nos.1,3 and 4 were present and heard.
6. We have carefully gone through the entire records and considered the rival contentions.
7. The facts of the case are not disputed and both the parties agreed that the fact of this case is comparable to the facts of the case in O.A Nos.170/564/2024, 565/2024, 566/2024 and 567/2024 and the issues to be decided in this case are identical to the aforementioned O.As.
8. We have examined the facts of the case, and we find them comparable to the case in O.A Nos.170/564/2024, 565/2024, 566/2024 and 567/2024 and the issues to be decided are identical and are as follows:
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.10.21 12:50:32+05'30' 5 O.A.No.170/00536/2024/CAT/BANGALORE 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?
9. As these issues are already decided and hence, the contentions raised in this case is no longer res-integra. Hence, considering the same, we pass the following orders:
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.10.21 12:50:32+05'30' 6 O.A.No.170/00536/2024/CAT/BANGALORE These Original Application is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to reassess if they have proposed any recovery based on the forfeiture of "Deputation" benefits to the applicant beyond 7 years of their deputation, and till her repatriation. If there are any such amounts within the proposed recovery of Rs.17,19,756/-, the said amount cannot be recovered from the applicant and the same shall be returned to her 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.
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
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2025.10.21
12:50:32+05'30'