Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Badri Prasad Dwivedi vs Mineral Exploration Corporation ... on 25 March, 2026
1
O.A. No. 493/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH CAMP AT NAGPUR
O.A. No. 493/2023
This the 25th day of March, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Badri Prasad Dwivedi,
S/o Late Chhannu Lal Dwivedi,
Aged about 61 years, Occ: Retired,
R/o Plot No. 37, Narmada Colony, Katol Road,
Nagpur 440013 ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. D.N. Mathur)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi 110001.
2. Mineral Exploration and Consultancy Limited,
(Formerly Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited),
(A Government of India Enterprise)
Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Bhawan,
High Land Drive Road, Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440006
Through its Chairman Cum Managing Director.
3. General Manager (HR),
Mineral Exploration and Consultancy Limited,
(Formerly Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited),
Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Bhawan,
High Land Drive Road, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur 440006.
...Respondents
Nicky Digitally signed
Kumari by Nicky Kumari (By Advocate: Mr. M.D. Samel)
2
O.A. No. 493/2023
ORAL ORDER
Per: Justice M. G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the relief of setting aside the notice dated 04th February, 2023 whereby an amount of Rs. 3,37,653 (in words Three Lakhs thirty seven Thousand and six hundred and fifty three only) has been recovered and for direction to refund the said amount.
2. Shorn of details, facts are that the applicant superannuated on 30th November, 2021. At the time of superannuation, he was working as General Manager (Stores and Disposal) with Mineral Exploration and Consultancy Limited (MECL), a Government of India undertaking, respondent nos. 1 to 3.
3. After two years of retirement, the applicant got a notice dated 04th February, 2023 (Annexure- A-1) by virtue of which he was informed that an amount of Rs. 3,37,653/- is to be recovered and the said amount has been adjusted against the applicant's Performance Related Pay (PRP) amount payable to the applicant Nicky Digitally signed Kumari by Nicky Kumari 3 O.A. No. 493/2023 for the year 2020-21 and from withheld amount, if any, and the balance amount payable is Rs. 2,60,071/-. This order is challenged in this OA.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that this recovery is totally against the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) AIR (SC) 696.
He submits that no recovery at the time of retirement or post retirement of an official/officer is permissible. Learned counsel further submits that the DoPT has issued Office Memorandum dated 19th September, 2022 encompassing the situations in which recovery is permissible and recovery is not permissible. He submits that this OM covers the recovery pertaining to all the Classes of Officers i.e. Group 'A', Group 'B' and Group 'C'.
5. The respondents filed their reply stating that the Circular dated 13th September, 2017 was issued regarding revised Principle of Grant of Annual Increment on promotion in which it was stated that "to maintain the date of annual increment of an Nicky Digitally signed employee depending upon the date of joining throughout the Kumari by Nicky Kumari 4 O.A. No. 493/2023 career until and unless it is changed due to disciplinary action or unauthorized absenteeism from duty as per the extant rules."
6. According to the respondents, this created an anomaly and to correct the anomaly, a resolution was taken by the Board on 04th November, 2022 by which the Circular dated 13th September, 2017 was rolled back and the overpayment that was made to the employees was recovered. Applicant was one of such employees and, therefore, this amount was recovered from him.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.
8. So far as recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,37,653/-
is concerned, it is not in dispute that this was recovered after the retirement of the applicant from the amount payable to him on account of PRP. The question that I am called upon to answer is whether such recovery is permissible after retirement.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the Nicky Digitally signed case of Rafiq Masih (supra) for the proposition that any amount Kumari by Nicky Kumari 5 O.A. No. 493/2023 after retirement or within one year preceding the date of retirement cannot be recovered. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute this position but contends that the recovery is permissible from the officers belonging to Group 'A'.
He submits that the recovery was ordered on account of the anomaly created because of the Circular dated 13th September, 2017 and that anomaly has been corrected and the aforesaid amount is recovered which is completely permissible. This issue had fallen for consideration before me in the case of Dr. Pradeep Sawant vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA No. 211/2025 (CAT, Mumbai Bench) in which following observations were recorded:-
"12. In the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors (supra), Supreme Court held in para 9 thus:-
"9. We are of the considered view, after going through various judgments cited at the bar, that this court has not laid down any principle of law that only if there is misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the recipients of the money in getting the excess pay, the amount paid due to irregular/wrong fixation of pay be recovered."
13. Thus, the Supreme Court has not laid down any principle of law that only if there is misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the recipients of the money in getting the excess pay, the amount paid due to irregular/wrong fixation of pay be recovered.
14. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), after considering Nicky Digitally signed judgment in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors (supra), Supreme Kumari by Nicky Kumari Court held in para 11 thus:-
6 O.A. No. 493/2023"11. For the above determination, we shall refer to some precedents of this Court wherein the question of recovery of the excess amount paid to employees, came up for consideration, and this Court disallowed the same. These are situations, in which High Courts all over the country. repeatedly and regularly set aside orders of recovery made on the expressed parameters.
(i). Reference may first of all be made to the decision in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475, wherein this Court recorded the following observation in paragraph 58:
"58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, (1996) 4 SCC 416, V. Ganga Ram v. Director, (1997) 6 SCC 139, Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, (2006) 11 SCC 492, Punjab National Bank v.
Manjeet Singh, (2006) 8 SCC 647 and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bahadur, (2000) 10 SCC 99."
(emphasis is ours) First and foremost, it is pertinent to note, that this Court in its judgment in Syed Abdul Qadir's case (supra) recognized, that the issue of recovery revolved on the action being iniquitous. Dealing with the subject of the action being iniquitous, it was sought to be concluded, that when the excess unauthorised payment is detected within a short period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the payment had been made for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery. Interference because an action is iniquitous, must really be perceived as, interference because the action is arbitrary. All arbitrary actions are truly, actions in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The logic of the action in the instant situation, is iniquitous, or arbitrary, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, because it would be almost impossible for an employee to bear the financial burden, of a refund of payment received Nicky Kumari Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari wrongfully for a long span of time. It is apparent, that a government employee is primarily dependent on his 7 O.A. No. 493/2023 wages, and if a deduction is to be made from his/her wages, it should not be a deduction which would make it difficult for the employee to provide for the needs of his family. Besides food, clothing and shelter, an employee has to cater, not only to the education needs of those dependent upon him, but also their medical requirements, and a variety of sundry expenses. Based on the above consideration, we are of the view, that if the mistake of making a wrongful payment is detected within five years, it would be open to the employer to recover the same. However, if the payment is made for a period in excess of five years, even though it would be open to the employer to correct the mistake, it would be extremely iniquitous and arbitrary to seek a refund of the payments mistakenly made to the employee."
15. The Supreme Court gave directions in para 12 as under:-
"12. 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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise 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."
16. From the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), it is clear that recovery towards excess payment cannot be made if the recovery causes undue hardship Nicky Digitally signed to the employee and for this purpose, Supreme Court laid down Kumari by Nicky Kumari a period of five years for effecting recovery of excess payment. If 8 O.A. No. 493/2023 recovery is effected within 05 years from the date of making excess payment, the recovery is permissible. From the situations enumerated by the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), it is clear that recovery is impermissible in the case of employees belonging to class-III and class-IV employees (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery, is also impermissible. Situation no. (iii) is relevant for decision of these O.As i.e. "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." Condition no. (iii) does not say that recovery is impermissible with respect to the employees who are in service. It specifically states that recovery from employees shall not be made if recovery is effected after five years from the excess payment. The wordings in situation no. (iii) clearly indicate that it applies to serving employees as well. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) is applicable only to retired employees. Only situation no. (ii) is applicable to retired employees. Situation nos. (iii), (iv) and (v) are applicable to all classes of employees.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the case of Pramod Kumar Sinha vs. Union of India and Ors. in Civil Writ Petition No. 11407 of 2024 (Patna High Court). In the case of Pramod Kumar Sinha (supra), it has been held that direction is only for Class-III and class-IV employees whereas the petitioner is retired class-II officer. In the case of Pramod Kumar Sinha (supra) relied by learned counsel for the respondents, it has been held that Rafiq Masih (supra), is not applicable to the case of class-II officers. However, in the case of Union of India and Ors. versus Rakesh Chandra Verma and Another in Civil Misc Review Application No.- 334 of 2023, Allahabad High Court has held that the equitable principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) applies not only to retired employees but it also applies to the case of the serving employees as well, subject to stipulations contained in that decision. It is further held that the equitable principle referred to above applies not only to Class-III and Class-IV employees but it also applies to other employees, to the extent indicated in that decision. It is further held that Clause- I is specific to Class-III & IV employees whereas the other clauses may apply to other class of employees as well, subject to the stipulations contained in that decision. From the decisions of Allahabad High Court in the case of Rakesh Chandra Verma (supra), it is clear that judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) applies to Class-I employees also."
10. From the above, it is clear that the wording of Clause iii of Nicky Kumari Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari the Supreme Court directions in para 12 of the Rafiq Masih 9 O.A. No. 493/2023 (supra) clearly indicates that the recovery from employees belonging to any class is not permissible when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years.
Situation no. (ii) also makes it clear that recovery from retired employees is not permissible. This clause nowhere says that it applies only to the employees belonging to Group 'C'. Rather, it shows that it applies to all employees irrespective of the Group to which they belong.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited my attention to Office Memorandum dated 19th September, 2022 to contend that recovery is not permissible in case of retired employees irrespective of their Group to which they belong. Clause III of this Office Memorandum deals with situations wherein recoveries of wrongful/excess payments by the employers would be impermissible in law. Clause III of the aforesaid OM is reproduced hereunder for ease of reference:-
"III Situations wherein recoveries of wrongful/excess payments by the employers would be impermissible in law Para II(iv) of the above instructions provides inter-alia that recovery Nicky Digitally signed Kumari by Nicky Kumari should be made in all cases of overpayment barring few exceptions of extreme hardships. The issue was considered by the Hon'ble 10 O.A. No. 493/2023 Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors Vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. in CA No.11527 of 2014 {arising out of SLP(C) No.11684 of 2012}.In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 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."
12. This clause or the entire OM does not even remotely indicate that it pertains to only Group 'C'. It pertains to all the employees irrespective of their Group to which they belong. In these circumstances, I do not find that the recovery was permissible in the eyes of law. Hence, OA is allowed. The order dated 04th February, 2023 (Annexure-A-1) is set aside. Amount of Nicky Digitally signed Kumari by Nicky Kumari Rs. 3,37,653/- be refunded to the applicant within a period of 11 O.A. No. 493/2023 four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
13. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. No costs.
(Justice M.G. Sewlikar)
Member (J)
nk
Nicky Digitally signed
Kumari by Nicky Kumari