Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ved Parkash vs Department Of Posts on 8 May, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.No. 060/1456/2024
Pronounced on : 27.05.2025
(Reserved on : 08.05.2025)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Ved Parkash, aged about 61 years, S/o Sh. Gokul Ram,
House No.56, Rose Enclave, V&PO Bring, via Jalandhar
Cantt.-144005, Retd. Postman, Jalandhar Head Post Office.
(Group 'C')
...Applicant
(Advocate: Sh. Jaswinder Singh)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary to Govt. of India,
Deptt. Of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-
110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Sandsh
Bhawan, Sector 17E, Chandigarh-160017. [E:
[email protected]]
3. Sr. Superintendent Post Offices, Jalandhar Division,
Jalandhar-44001.[E:[email protected]]
4. Sr. Postmaster, Jalandhar City Head Post Office,
Jalandhar City-144001.
[E:[email protected]].
5. The Deputy Director Postal Accounts, Kapurthala-
144601 [E: [email protected]].
...Respondent(s)
(Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC)
2
ORDER
Per: ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A):
1. This application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, whereby, the applicant has sought for the following relief:
a) Declare that the impugned order of recovery dated 17.12.2022 (Annexure A1) issued by respondent no.5 is bad in law.
b) Quash and set aside the impugned order of recovery, issued vide letter no. Pen Pb/PC-81/C/22-23, dated 17.12.2022 (Annexure A1) by respondent no.5, directing recovery from the gratuity of the applicant.
c) Direct the respondents to refund/restore the recovered amount of Rs.1,27,800/- to the applicant with interest @ 12% p.a.
d) Allow the present OA with costs in favour of the applicant.
2. The applicant in its OA has submitted the following:-
i) The applicant joined the respondent Department as Postman on 09.09.1982. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2022. PPO was issued to the applicant vide letter 17.12.2022 (Annexure A1). Respondent no.5 advised respondent no.4 to recover a sum of Rs.1,27,800/- from the Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) of the applicant.
ii) The applicant requested respondent no.4 in writing not to effect any recovery in view of GoI instructions contained in OM Nos.18/26/2011-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 06.02.2014 and 18/03/2015-Estt. (Pay-I), dated 02.03.2016, but no reply wsa given to the applicant. On 23.12.2023 respondent No. 4, wrote a letter (Annexure A4) captioned Regarding recovery of 3 excess Pay & Allowances to Sh. Ved Parkash, Postman Jalandhar City, H.O. going to retire on 31.12.2022, to respondent No. 5, inter-alla conveying, "....During security of the service Book in accordance of your observation raised by your office vide letter no. Pen/Ph/C/PC-81/22-23/3633 dated 02.11.2022 this office observed and rechecked the case. The Pay fixation has been recalculated and done accordingly. The whole case has been submitted to your office for finalization. It is requested your good self to look into and guide this office in accordance with office Memorandum No. 18/03/2015-Est of Dept. of Personnel & Training, New Delhi as early as the official is going to be retired on 23.12.2022".
iii) On 30.12.2022 respondent No. 4, wrote a letter (Annexure A5) captioned 'Regarding recovery of excess Pay & Allowances to Sh. Ved Parkash, Postman Jalandhar City, 1.0. going to retire on 31.12.2022', to respondent No. 3/Sr. Supdt. POs, Jalandhar Dn. inter-alia on the above lines, adding that "In this regard DAP Kapurthala has intimated vide letter no. Pen Pb/PC-81/C/22-23/4639 dated 30.12.2022(received through e-mail) that the proposal to waive off may be processed accordingly through competent authority. So, the application of the official along with copy of Office Memorandum No. 18/03/2015-Eatt of Dept. of Personnel & 4 Training, New Delhi is forwarded to your office for taking further n/a at your end.
iv) On 30.12.2022 respondent No.5, wrote a letter (Annexure A6) captioned 'Regarding recovery of excess Pay & Allowances to Sh. Ved Parkash, Postman Jalandhar City, H.O going to retire on 31.12.2022', to respondent No. 4, inter- alia conveying "With reference to above it is informed that as per LPC received with the pension case, it was mentioned in the LPC that Rs. 1,27,800/- was outstanding against the official on account of revised pay fixation w.e.f. 01.1.2016. Accordingly, it was mentioned in the retirement Gratuity Authority No. Pen Pb/PC-81/C/22-23 dated 22.12.2022 of the official that Overpaid & allowance amounting to Rs.1,27,800/-".
v) After release of post retiral dues to the applicant, the said sum of Rs. 1,27,800/- was arbitrarily withdrawn from the Post Office Savings A/c No. 0486914510 of the applicant by respondent on account of "RECOVERY OF EXCESS PAID PAY", as can be seen very clearly from screenshot of computerized Post Office Bank Statement of the applicant (Annexure A7). Aggrieved by the said recovery, the applicant submitted a representation dated 02.03.2023 (Annexure A8), to respondent No.3, agitating against the said recovery in view of clear instructions against any such recovery contained in 5 Gol O.M. Nos. 18/26/2011-Estt (Pay-1) Dt. 06.2.2014 & 18/03/2015-Estt. (Pay-1) dated 02.03.2016.
vi) The respondent No. 3, did not respond to the representation of the applicant, the grievance was escalated by the applicant to respondent No.2-Chief Postmaster General Punjab Circle, Chandigarh vide representation dated 30.03.2023 (Annexure A9). The respondent No. 2 has sent a vague & cryptic reply dated 20.7.2023 (Annexure A-10), to the applicant, justifying the impugned recovery based on letter dated 30.12.2022 (Annexure A6) from Respondent No.
5. The applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, and the order of this Tribunal quashing and setting aside the order of recovery in respect of similarly placed applicant in the case of Kamlesh Kumari Vs. D/o Posts in OA No.1069/2021, dated 15.05.2023, (Annexure A11).
3. Notice was issued to the respondents. The written statement has been submitted by the respondents wherein preliminary objection has been raised, stating as follows:-
i) It was submitted that order dated 17.12.2022 (Annexure A-1), whereby an amount of Rs. 1,27,800/- has been recovered from the DCRG of the applicant as the said amount 6 was paid to the applicant in excess by the respondents and the recovery of the excess payment was done in accordance with Rule 67 and 69 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, (Erstwhile Rule 71 & 73 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972) and therefore, the impugned order dated 17.12.2022 (Annexure A1) is liable to be upheld by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
ii) It was indicated that the applicant had joined the respondent-Department as Postman on 09.09.1982 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2022. He is currently drawing pension under PPO No. PN-53981 from Jalandhar City HPO. During the processing and finalization of the pension case of the applicant, the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kapurthala, raised an observation vide letter dated 02.11.2022 (Annexure R1) and letter dated 05.12.2022 (Annexure R2). The pay fixation of the applicant was incorrect w.e.f 01.01.2016 as there was an error of one increment in the salary of the applicant, resulting in overpayment of pay and allowances out to Rs.1,27,800/-. Consequently, the excess amount paid to the applicant is subject to recovery.
iii) It is submitted that the Director of Accounts (DAP), Kapurthala, directed the Office of the Senior Postmaster, Jalandhar City, to make the necessary note in the service book of the applicant and it was also directed to ensure as to 7 whether the recovery of the overpaid amount has been completed or remains pending, and asked to issue no due certificate. The office of the Senior Postmaster, Jalandhar City, rechecked the pay fixation, recalculated the amount, and identified an overpayment of Rs.1,27,800/-. The revised case, along with the updated Last Pay Certificate (LPC) with notification of the overpaid amount was then submitted by Sr. PM Jalandhar City HO to the office of Director of Accounts (Postal), Kapurthala vide letter dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure R3). The recovery of Govt. dues of Rs.1,27,800/- was made from the applicant in accordance with Sub Rule (2) & (3) of Rule 67 and Sub Rule (1) & (3) of Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.
iv) As per Rule 67 (2) (b) the amount of Rs.1,27,800/-
pertains to Govt. due relating to overpayment of pay & allowances or leave salary and as per provision of Sub- Rule (3) of Rule 67 of said Rules, such due amount is adjustable against the amount of retirement gratuity. Further, Rule 69 (3) of said Rules also provides that the dues as assessed under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 67 which remain outstanding till the date of retirement of Govt. Servant shall be adjusted against the amount of retirement gratuity becoming payable to the Govt. Servants on his retirement. Thus, the amount has been recovered as per extinct provisions of CCS 8 (Pension) Rules, 2021. Copy of Rule-67 & Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 is enclosed as (Annexure R-3A).
v) The applicant has duly given undertaking during pay fixation dated 16.05.2007, 13.09.2008 and 17.08.2016 (Annexure R4 to R6 respectively) which is duly recorded in service book. Thus the applicant has himself undertook/admitted for refund of excess amount paid to him either by adjustment against future payments due to him or otherwise the recovery has been made accordingly on the basis of his undertaking as well as in accordance with provision contained under Rule 67 & 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.
vi) The law is well settled that a mistaken decision can always be corrected by the administrative authorities and such power to correct the mistake is inherent, inbuilt in the administrative law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Narender Singh, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 750, it has been held as under:-
"32. It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent was promoted though he was not eligible and qualified But, we cannot countenance the submission of the respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due process of law. In ICAR v. T.K. Suryanarayan, it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees but a court of law cannot ignore statutory rules."
Thus, the respondents prayed that in view of the facts and 9 circumstances of the reply to the OA, the applicant is not entitled to the relief being claimed for in the present OA and thus, the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The applicant has submitted rejoinder reiterating similar facts as stated in the OA.
5. Heard counsel for the applicant and counsel for the respondents and have gone through the pleadings and averments made in this case.
6. The Tribunal is of the view that the facts as stated by the applicant in this case are squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), decided on 18.12.2014, the operative part of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reads 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.10
(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."
Subsequent to this, the instructions were also issued by DoPT in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court stating DoPT instructions reads as follows:-
"III Situations wherein recoveries of wrongful/excess payments by theemployers would be impermissible in law Para II(iv) of the above instructions provides inter-alia that recovery should be made in all cases of overpayment barring few exceptions of extreme hardships. The issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors Vs Rafiq Masih (WhiteWasher) 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."
7. In view of the aforesaid, the recovery made in the present case of the applicant is impermissible in the law. Accordingly, the present OA is allowed. The recovery made vide Annexure A1 dated 17.12.2022 is hereby quashed. The 11 amount so recovered to be refunded to the applicant along with interest @ GPF till the payment of deducted amount is finally made. The needful be done within a period of four weeks.
8. No order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) MEMBER (A) /sv/