Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Saibani Palai vs Indian Council Of Medical Research on 21 January, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/00353 of 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00353 of 2024
Reserved on 15.01.2026 Pronounced on 21.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Smt. Saibani Palai, aged about 49 years, wife
of late Shri Gangadhar Palai, Ex-FLA, ICMR
and at present residing At- Ganesh Nagar (1st
Lane), PS/PO- Lanjipalli, Berhampur, dist. -
Ganjam, Odisha, PIN- 760008.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through the
Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, At- Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, PIN-
110001.
2. Director General & Secretary, Department of
Health Research, Indian Council of Medical
Research, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, PIN-
110029.
3. Director, National Institute of Malaria
Research, Sector-8, Dwaraka, New Delhi, PIN-
110077.
4. Administrative Officer, National Institute of
Malaria Research, Sector-8, Dwaraka, New
Delhi. PIN-110077.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. R.K.Sahoo, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.01.21
15:57:13 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00353 of 2024
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The husband of the applicant, namely Late Gangadhar Palai admittedly while working as Field Laboratory Attendant in ICMR, prematurely died on 20.09.2018. After expiry of more than three years, the authority concerned vide show cause notice dated 23.07.2021 intimated the applicant, Smt. Saibani Palai, that the competent authority of the ICMR vide letter dated 15.03.2021, decided to initiate departmental proceeding against those employee, who stay/stayed in Govt. SAIL Accommodation and drawn HRA and, therefore, in the said show cause notice dated 13.07.2021 Late Gangadhr Palai was called upon to explain within a period of 15 days as to why Rs. 2,81,632/- shall not be recovered from him for occupation of the Quarters owned and provided by the SAIL authorities and, at the same time drew HRA from ICRM for the period 13.10.2007 to 30.9.2018. She submitted reply on 11.08.2021 trying to justify as to why the recovery from her late husband is not permissible, especially, after his death. In the said sow cause notice dated 23.07.2021, no RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:57:13 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00353 of 2024 whisper is made that the said amount of Rs. 2, 81,632/- has been withheld out of the total amount paid to her towards DCRG after the death of her husband in the counter filed by the respondents they have fairly admitted that the above said amount has been withheld from the DCRG paid to her pending final decision of the competent authority and by further stating that recovery of the amount was/is well justified and cannot be interfered with is no more res integra as per the order of this Bench in OA No. 542/2020 titled Gopal Krushna Padhi Vs UOI & Ors.
The respondents have also taken the ground of law of limitation in support of the stand that the OA beig devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
2. Heard. Perused the records.
3. We are aghast to note that the alleged period of occupation of the quarters, in question, was from 13.07.2007 to 30.09.2018 but the respondents kept silent over the years when the employee concerned was alive/in service. After his death, they have withheld the amount from the DCRG in the name that he occupied the quarters of the SAIL and, at the same time drew the RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:57:13 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00353 of 2024 salary, more interestingly, in the show cause the late employee has been called upon to explain as to why the amount shall not be recovered from him. We are reminded by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gorakhpur University & Ors vs Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra & Ors, 2001 AIR SCW 2819, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"We have carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the respective parties before us. The earlier decision pertaining to this very university reported in 1996 (2) ESC 211 (All.) (supra) is that of a Division Bench rendered after considering the principles laid down and also placing reliance upon the decisions of this Court reported in 1994 (6) SCC 589 (supra) which, in turn, relied upon earlier decisions in State of Kerala vs M. Padmanabhan Nair [1985 (1) SCC 429] and AIR 1981 SC page 212 (Supra). This court has been repeatedly emphasizing the position that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be distributed by Government but are valuable rights acquired and property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest. Withholding of quarters allotted, while in service, even after retirement without vacating the same has been viewed to be not a valid ground to withhold the disbursement of the terminal benefits. Such is the position with reference to amounts due towards Provident Fund, which is rendered immune from attachment and deduction or adjustment as against any other dues from the employee. In the context of this, mere reliance on behalf of the appellant upon yet another decision of a different Division Bench of the very High Court rendered without taking note of any of the earlier RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:57:13 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00353 of 2024 decisions of this court but merely proceeding to decide the issue upon equitable considerations of balancing conflicting claims of respective parties before it does not improve the case of the appellant any further. Reliance placed for the appellant university on the decision reported in JT 2000 Suppl. (1) SC 515 (Supra) does not also sound well on the facts and circumstances of this case. It is not clear from the facts relating to the said decision as to whether the person concerned was allowed to remain in occupation on receipt of the normal rent as in the present case. As noticed earlier, the case of the contesting respondent in this case is that the university authorities regularly accepted the rent at normal rates every month from the petitioner till the quarters was vacated and that in spite of request made for the allotment of the said quarters in favour of the son of the respondent, who is in the service of the university, no decision seems to have been taken and communicated though it is now claimed in the Court proceedings that he is not entitled to this type of accommodation. Further, the facts disclosed such as the resolutions of the university resolving to waive penal rent from all Teachers as well as that of the Executive Council dated 18.7.1994 and the actual such waiver made in the case of several others cannot be easily ignored. The lethargy shown by the authorities in not taking any action according to law to enforce their right to recover possession of the quarters from the respondent or fix liability or determine the so-called penal rent after giving prior show-cause notice or any opportunity to him before ever even proceeding to recover the same from the respondent renders the claim for penal rent not only a seriously disputed or contested claim but the university cannot be allowed to recover summarily the alleged dues according to its whims in a vindictive manner by adopting different and discriminatory standards. The facts disclosed also show that it is almost one year after the vacation of the quarter and that too on the basis of certain subsequent orders increasing the rates of penal rent, the applicability of which to the respondent itself was again seriously RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:57:13 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00353 of 2024 disputed and to some extent justifiably too, the appellant cannot be held to be entitled to recover by way of adjustment such disputed sums or claims against the pension, gratuity and provident fund amounts indisputably due and unquestionably payable to the respondent before us. The claims of the university cannot be said to be in respect of an admitted or conceded claim or sum due.
Therefore, we are of the view that no infirmity or illegality could be said to be vitiated the order, under challenge in this appeal, to call for our interference, apart from the further reason that the disbursements have already been said to have been made in this case as per the decision of the High Court."
4. Be that as it may, we find that similar matters on same set of facts and issues came up before this Bench in OA Nos. OA Nos.
349/2024 and 351/2024 and withholding the amounts from the DCRG of the employees concerned, in this case from the deceased employee, on same set of allegation as in the present case, was held to be bad in law by this Bench. The relevant portion of the direction made in OA No. 349/2024 (Durga Madhab Padhi vs UOI & Ors) reads as under;
"3. ............Hence, according to him, there is no delay and, in argumendo, even if there is any delay, this being a recurring cause of action, delay should not stand on the way for the relief, unlike the present case, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.R.Gupta Vs UOI & Ors, 1996 AIR 669. We have examined the matter, keeping in mind the facts and law stated above, and do not find any merit to uphold the stand point of the respondents that this OA being hit by limitation is liable to be dismissed.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:57:13 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00353 of 2024
4. After hearing Ld. Counsel for the parties, we have perused the records.
5. In the given circumstances stated above vis a vis the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.R.Gupta Vs UOI & Ors, 1996 AIR 669, we do not find any force on the stand of the respondents to hold that the OA is hit by law of limitation, hence, this objection of the respondents is overruled.
6. It is a settled principle of law that when the employer is an entity under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, which have to conduct themselves as a model employer vide Bhupendranath Hazarika Vs State of Assam, 2013 AIR (SC) 234. The DoP&T taking into consideration the decision in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, issued exhaustive guidelines vide OM dated 02.03.2016 on recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government servants. In the instant case, the applicant retired on 31.05.2019. He was communicated the office order showing the recovery on 31.07.2019. Respondents filed their counter on 25.09.2024 stating therein that they have not recovered any amount from the retiral dues of the applicant but withheld the same awaiting final decision of the competent authority without stating who is the competent authority to take a decision when counter has also been filed on behalf of Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi. Hence, this submission of the respondents is held to be an arbitrary action on their part.
7. According to Ld. Counsel for the applicant, withholding of amount from the DCRG of the applicant is bad in law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors Vs The Dist. Judge Cuttack and others, 2025 INSC 449. We have gone through the said decision and we find that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case, after taking note of the decisions in the cases of State of Punjab and Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) & Ors, (2015) 4 SCC 34, and Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 INSC 498, fixed yardsticks where recovery, even if not due but paid to an employee, is impermissible. The relevant RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:57:13 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00353 of 2024 portion of the decision in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo (supra) reads as under:
"18. 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. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the 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."
8. The respondents in their counter so also in hearing have put/laid much more emphasis on the earlier decision of this case in the case of Gopal Krushna Padhi (supra). According to them, the said case is akin to the case in hand and the same having been dismissed by this Bench, which has not been reversed by any higher forum, the OA is liable to be dismissed. We find that the order in OA No. RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:57:13 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00353 of 2024 542/2020 was dismissed by the Single Bench. Although, in the aforesaid case, recovery was made for same cause but from the salary of the applicant as he was in service and not from the DCRG amount as in the instant OA. The applicant has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 19.02.2004 in W.Ps. No. 31014-31023 of 2023 (S-CAT) [B H AMAR Venkatesh & Ors Vs Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices & Ors.] wherein in similar situation, it was held that an employee is entitled to HRA in the event quarters is not allotted under the Allotment of Govt. Residences (General Pool) Rules and in the event allotment of quarters under the above rules, the employee is liable to pay License Fee in accordance with SR-317-B-12(1). What shall be License Fee of the quarters has to be determined as per annexure-I appended to FR 45(A). In the case, the applicant was paying the rent and other allied charges as per the agreement executed with the SAIL. Therefore, according to the present applicant, the OA No. 542/2020 having been decided by the Single Bench without taking note of the decision in the case of B H AMAR Venkatesh & Ors (supra), facts noted above, and the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo (supra), the decision in OA No. 542/2020 has no application for allowing the present OA. Law of precedent requires that similar matter to be decided in similar line provided that the facts in both the cases are not distinguishable [Ref. Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs M/S Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr, AIR 2002 SC 834]. As discussed above, it makes clear that the decision of the Single Bench in OA No. 542/2020 has no application to the present case since, according to the respondents, they have not recovered the amount but withheld the same from DCRG of the applicant awaiting the final decision of the competent authority and that the said decision was rendered without taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B H AMAR Venkatesh & RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:57:13 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00353 of 2024 Ors (supra) and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jogeshwar Sahoo (supra). Since, meanwhile, near about three years already expired, granting further time to the Respondents to take decision would be nothing but iniquitous, harsh and perpetuation of financial difficulties against the applicant; when his case squarely comes/falls within the ingredients fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) of the Jogeshwar Sahoo (supra). In the said premises, we direct the Respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 4,66,553/-, withheld from the DCRG of the applicant, within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. At the same time, we refrain from passing any order for payment of any interest since the withholding of amount from DCRG cannot be said to be intentional or deliberate on the part of the respondents but for the reasons discussed above. However, we make it clear that in the event the amount is not paid to the applicant within the period stated above, the applicant shall be entitled to 12% interest per annum from the day one of expiry of sixty days till actual payable, which shall be recoverable from the officer/official responsible for the delay instead of bearing the excess payment towards interest from Govt. exchequer."
5. The doctrine of precedent is based on the Latin maxim:
"Stare Decisis et Non Queita Movere", in other words, to maintain the fairness, predictability, certainty, uniformity and stability in judicial decisions, the Court/Tribunal should stand by what has been decided and do not vary the decision unless, it is RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:57:13 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00353 of 2024 found on examination of any distinguished facts and law in both the cases. We find no reason to take a different view than the view already taken in the above cases, especially when the present case is fully covered and governed by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Gorakhpur University & Ors (supra) and Jogeshwar Sahoo (supra). Therefore, we hasten to quash the show cause notice dated 23.07.2021 issued to the applicant calling upon late G.D.Palai, the ex-employee concerned, being illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and it is quashed. As a consequence, the Respondents are directed to refund the actual withheld amount to the applicant within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We have gone through the decisions relied on by the applicant in support of payment of interest but we find that in the said cases since delay in release of the dues was attributable to the department interest was directed to be paid but that is not the case in hand. Hence, we refrain from passing any order for payment of any interest since the withholding of amount from DCRG cannot be said to be intentional or deliberate on the part of RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:57:13 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00353 of 2024 the respondents but for the reasons discussed above. However, we make it clear that in the event the amount is not paid to the applicant within the period stated above, the applicant shall be entitled to 12% interest per annum from the day one of expiry of sixty days till actual payable, which shall be recoverable from the officer/official responsible for the delay instead of bearing the excess payment towards interest from Govt. exchequer.
6. In the result, this OA stands allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.01.21
15:57:13 +05'30'