Jarnail Singh Tuli vs Union Of India & Ors

$~10 to 14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 25 February, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 7659/2011
SURJIT SINGH BHATOA AND ORS .....Petitioners

versus

UOI AND ORS .....Respondents

With
W.P.(C) 3365/2012, W.P.(C) 9195/2015, W.P.(C) 13584/2019 &
W.P.(C) 12187/2021

For Petitioners : Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Ritambra Kaushik, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Mr.
Anand Singh, Ms. Saumya, Mr. Archit Gautam,
Advocates in item no. 10 & 11.
Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Mr. Anand Aggarwal, Mr.
O.P. FAizi, Ms. Lisha Arora, Ms. Nishtha Verma,
Ms. Tanya Jain, Mr. Himanshu Singh, Ms. Anjali
Kashyap, Ms. Ishita, Advocates in item no. 12.
Ms. Arati Mahajan Shedha, Ms. Shilpa Chaurasia,
Ms. Jyotsna Shandilya, Advocates in item no. 13.

For Respondents : Mr. Sushil Pandey, SPC with Mr. Aman Kr.
Pandey, Advocates for UOI in item no. 10.
Mr. Manoj, Ms. Aparna Sinha, Advocates with
Mr. M.M. Zakkiruddeen GM-L in items No. 10 &
11.
Mr. Saroj Bidawat, SPC for R-1 in item no. 11, 12
& 13.
Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSPC with Mr. Gokul
Sharma, Advocate for R-2 in item no. 12.
Mr. Manoj, Ms. Aparna Sinha, Advocates for R-2
in item No. 12.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 1 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

Mr. Manoj, Ms. Aparna Sinha, Advocates for R-2
to 6 in item No. 13.
Mr. Manoj, Ms. Aparna Sinha, Advocates in item
No. 12.
Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSPC with Mr. Gokul
Sharma, Advocate for R-1 in item no. 13.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):

1. The dispute concerns two pay regimes applied in Central Public
1
Sector Enterprises: the Central Dearness Allowance pattern, historically
aligned to Central Government scales, and the Industrial Dearness
2
Allowance pattern, aligned to the industrial DA formula. In Food
Corporation of India (Respondent No. 2), a sizeable group of officers
st
appointed prior to 1 January, 1989 continued on the CDA pattern for years,
even after receiving promotions, and retired with pay and terminal benefits
settled on that basis. The position was materially altered with the issuance of
th
the DPE Office Memorandum dated 10 August, 2009 (clarifying that
“appointment” includes “promotion”), followed by the DPE direction dated
th
12 July, 2010 mandating retrospective application, and culminating in FCI
th
Circular dated 30 September, 2011, which directed retrospective
conversion of such officers from the CDA pattern to the IDA pattern with
st
effect from the date of their first promotion on or after 1 January, 1989,

1
“CDA”
2
“IDA”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 2 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

along with consequential refixation. This exercise unsettled the long-
standing pay position: some retirees were exposed to alleged “excess”
payments and recoveries, while others, on the same refixation, asserted
entitlement to arrears and enhanced gratuity.
2. These five writ petitions represent two sets of retired officers pulling
in opposite directions: one set challenges retrospective conversion from
CDA to IDA, insofar as it operates to their detriment and is accompanied by
recovery or withholding; the other seeks implementation of the very same
conversion on the footing that the refixation yields a financial upside, and
complains that FCI has proceeded with recoveries but has withheld
th th
payments by relying on the later circulars dated 24 May, 2013 and 5
January, 2015.
3. The factual background traces its origins to the Supreme Court
rd
judgment dated 3 May, 1990 and the implementation instructions issued
thereafter. Given the common facts, the same instruments, and the shared
interim history forming the backdrop to all five petitions, and since
directions in one set inevitably bear upon the other, a composite adjudication
is necessary to avoid inconsistent outcomes and to ensure a workable, even-
handed relief.
Parties and the two sets of Petitioners
4. W.P.(C) 7659/2011 has been filed by a set of retired FCI executives
st
who entered service prior to 1 January, 1989 under CDA terms and
continued on the CDA pattern through promotions. Herein, Petitioner No. 2,
th
Mr. Surender Singh, though appointed on 27 December, 1989, is part of the
same cohort, having also been continued on the CDA pattern. The
th
Petitioners contend that the circular dated 30 September, 2011 and the DPE
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 3 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

th
O.M. dated 10 August, 2009 cannot be applied retrospectively to their
detriment.
5. W.P.(C) 3365/2012 is filed by two executives of FCI, namely, Mr.
Prit Pal Singh and Mr. Madan Lal Sehgal. The Petitioners were appointed
st
prior to 1 January, 1989 on the CDA pattern and continued thereon despite
subsequent promotions. Mr. Prit Pal Singh, appointed in 1986,
superannuated in November, 2014, while Mr. Madan Lal Sehgal, appointed
st
in 1976, superannuated on 31 October, 2011. Their petition also assails the
unilateral retrospective conversion from CDA to IDA and additionally seeks
release of retiral dues, including salary and leave encashment, allegedly
withheld while implementing the impugned conversion
6. W.P.(C) 9195/2015 is filed by a retired executive who seeks the
th
opposite relief. He asserts that, as per the DPE O.M. dated 10 August, 2009
th
and the FCI circular dated 30 September, 2011, his pay ought to be re-fixed
st
in the IDA pattern from the date of his first promotion after 1 January, 1989
and he is entitled to payment of the differential amount with interest. His
principal grievance is “selective implementation”, namely, that the
Corporation has proceeded with recoveries or implemented conversion in
some cases but has withheld payments in cases where refixation results in a
th
payable amount in terms of the impugned circulars dated 24 May, 2013 and
th
5 January, 2015.
7. W.P.(C) 13584/2019 is filed by four retired AGMs
st
(Accounts/Vigilance) from the North Zone, who retired between 31
st
August, 2007 and 31 January, 2009. They seek arrears and differential
th
gratuity on the footing that, pursuant to the circular dated 30 September,
2011, their pay was in fact re-fixed under IDA by formal pay-fixation orders
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 4 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

in early 2012. In two cases, sanction orders for differential gratuity were
also issued, yet payments were not released. They allege discrimination by
pointing to comparators in the same zone who received similar payments in
May, 2012. They also challenge the “recovery-only/payment-kept-pending”
th th
posture under the circular dated 24 May, 2013 and the reiteration dated 5
January, 2015.
8. The petitioners in W.P.(C) 12187/2019 also claim to be beneficiaries
of the conversion regime flowing from the DPE Office Memorandum dated
th th
10 August, 2009 and the FCI circular dated 30 September, 2011, and seek
its enforcement with IDA fixation from the date of first promotion on or
st
after 1 January, 1989, along with consequential arrears. They impugn the
th
subsequent FCI circular dated 24 May, 2013 on the ground that it
effectively freezes payments in “beneficiary cases” while permitting
recoveries in “recovery cases”, resulting in a one-sided implementation of
the same framework. The Petitioners emphasise that they are willing to
furnish undertakings to refund/adjust any sums released to them if the
th
circular dated 30 September, 2011 is ultimately set aside in the pending
challenges. On their case, it is contended that following vacation of the
nd
interim stay on 22 February, 2013 by this Court, there was no legal basis to
continue withholding their dues.
Background in sequence
9. The present controversy is not a stand-alone service dispute. It is the
downstream consequence of a long-running policy shift in CPSE pay
regimes and the litigation that accompanied it.
10. The Union of India had, in the 1980s, moved to phase out CDA
pattern in CPSEs and to place their employees on IDA pattern. That policy
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 5 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

move travelled through multiple proceedings and, during the pendency of
3
the litigation, a High Power Pay Committee was constituted under the aegis
of the Supreme Court to examine the pay and allowance structure of CPSE
employees then governed by the CDA pattern. The HPPC submitted its final
nd
report on 2 November, 1988, and a batch of matters culminated in a
rd
common judgment of the Supreme Court dated 3 May, 1990.
rd
11. The directions issued on 3 May, 1990 provide the normative starting
st
point for the present case. They draw a clear cut-off at 1 January, 1989 and,
for employees already on the CDA pattern before that date, preserve an
element of choice. The Supreme Court, inter alia , directed that: (i) the
HPPC recommendations on revised pay scales and DA would be extended to
those employees who were appointed with specific terms providing for CDA
and those who, by rules framed by the public enterprise, were being paid
st
CDA; (ii) employees appointed on or after 1 January, 1989 would be
governed by such pay scales and allowances as may be decided by the
Government in its discretion; and (iii) those covered would “continue to
enjoy the option” to switch over to the IDA pattern on a voluntary basis.
rd
12. Pursuant to the Supreme Court judgment dated 3 May, 1990, the
Department of Public Enterprises (“DPE”) issued an Office Memorandum
th
dated 12 June, 1990 laying down detailed implementation instructions,
including the classification of categories and the manner in which the
switch-over to IDA was to be operationalised.
13. In the case of FCI, it is pleaded that the option contemplated under the
Supreme Court framework was not made available in the manner required.
A contempt petition was therefore carried to the Supreme Court, and the

3
“HPPC”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 6 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

th
contempt proceedings were disposed of on 25 January, 1993 with
directions that the option to switch to IDA be opened to FCI employees for a
period of six months.
14. What followed thereafter is equally significant for present purposes.
For many years, a substantial class of FCI executives who had entered
st
service prior to 1 January, 1989 continued on the CDA pattern, even while
st
they received promotions after 1 January, 1989. The same position applied
to Mr. Surinder Singh (Petitioner No. 2 in W.P.(C) 7659/2011), who,
st th
although appointed after the cut-off date of 1 January, 1989 (i.e., on 27
December, 1989), nevertheless continued to be governed by the CDA
pattern. That long continuation is not a peripheral assertion. It is part of the
admitted factual landscape. FCI itself pleads that it had not sought, and did
not have, a general clarification treating “promotion” as falling within
“appointment” for this purpose, and hence CDA officers continued to be
promoted on CDA.
th
15. The position changed with the DPE Office Memorandum dated 10
August, 2009. By that communication, DPE clarified that the expression
“appointment” is wide enough to include “promotion” as well. Thereafter,
th
by Office Memorandum dated 12 July, 2010, DPE further clarified that the
above instructions were to apply retrospectively, and this position was
reiterated again in September, 2011.
th
16. In that backdrop, FCI issued Circular No. WR-09-2011-15 dated 30
September, 2011 titled “ Shifting of employees on CDA Pattern Scales of Pay
to IDA Pattern Scales of pay w.e.f. the date of their first promotion after
01.01.1989 ”. The circular decided to shift CDA employees to IDA
st
retrospectively from the date of their first promotion on or after 1 January,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 7 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

1989; prescribed the fitment methodology; applied IDA allowances from the
said date; denied stepping up of pay at par with juniors already on IDA; and
contemplated adjustment and recovery of “excess” payments, including
from arrears and, where necessary, from retiral dues.
th
17. Predictably, the circular dated 30 September, 2011 triggered
th
litigation. Interim orders followed in the leading matters: on 15 December,
2011, recoveries from the pay of the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 7659/2011 were
th
restrained; on 29 May, 2012, in W.P.(C) 3365/2012 the DPE O.M. dated
th th
10 August, 2009 and the FCI circular dated 30 September, 2011 were
nd
stayed; and on 22 February, 2013, the Court declined to continue an
interim shield against recovery where amounts had been received in excess,
recording that entitlement would be examined at final disposal, and
observing that the employer could recover amounts legally found not due.
nd
18. After the order dated 22 February, 2013, FCI issued Circular dated
th
24 May, 2013 stating that, “to safeguard the financial interests of the
Corporation”, recoveries would be made from retiring employees/officers
from whom it was recoverable, while “other cases” would be kept pending
till further court orders. The same approach was reiterated by
th
communication dated 5 January, 2015. It is this later administrative posture
that, in large measure, explains why one set of retirees complains of
recoveries and withholdings, while another complains of non-release of
amounts said to be payable on refixation.
Submissions, in outline
19. The Petitioners in W.P.(C) 7659/2011 and W.P.(C) 3365/2012, all of
th
whom are retired, assail the DPE O.M. dated 10 August, 2009 and the FCI
th
circular dated 30 September, 2011 on the footing that they upset a long-
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 8 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

settled service position. Their case is that they entered service under the
st
CDA pattern prior to 1 January, 1989, continued on that regime through
promotions for years, and retired on that basis. A retrospective conversion,
decades later, is said to rewrite their service conditions after the event. They
rd
place emphasis on the Supreme Court judgment dated 3 May, 1990,
st
contending that it preserved an element of choice for pre-1 January, 1989
incumbents and that such protection cannot be diluted by a later executive
“clarification” equating promotion with appointment. They also submit that
recoveries from retired employees, and withholdings from retiral benefits
founded on such retrospective refixation, are impermissible, relying
particularly on State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) &
4
Ors. On their case, the impugned action is arbitrary and offends Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution.
20. The Union of India and the Department of Public Enterprises adopt a
contrary interpretive stance. They rely on the Supreme Court judgment dated
rd th
3 May, 1990, the implementation O.M. dated 12 June, 1990, and the later
th
O.M. dated 10 August, 2009 to contend that “appointment” is wide enough
to include “promotion”. On that reasoning, employees who continued on
st
CDA despite receiving a first promotion on or after 1 January, 1989 are
said to have been liable, in law, to be placed on the IDA pattern from that
stage, and the subsequent steps taken by FCI are defended as an
implementation of binding Government instructions.
21. FCI’s pleadings in the challenge petitions occupy a more nuanced
th
middle ground. While the Corporation justifies the circular dated 30
September, 2011 as an act of compliance with DPE directions, it candidly

4
(2015) 4 SCC 334.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 9 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

pleads that it had sought permission to apply the change prospectively and
on an option basis because retrospective application could disadvantage
some employees. At the same time, FCI asserts that a significant segment of
officers, particularly in Categories I and II, would in fact derive financial
advantage under the IDA regime, including eligibility for cafeteria-based
fringe benefits. FCI thus acknowledges on record that the conversion would
not operate uniformly: while some employees would gain on refixation,
others could suffer a reduction.
22. W.P.(C) 9195/2015 and W.P.(C) 13584/2019 is filed by retirees who
stand on the other side of that divide. They do not seek to strike down the
conversion regime; rather, they challenge FCI’s subsequent circulars dated
th th
24 May, 2013 and 5 January, 2015 to the extent they effectively stalled
release of amounts becoming payable upon IDA refixation. Their grievance
is that FCI has operationalised the framework unevenly: recoveries have
proceeded in cases where refixation yields an “excess”, but payments have
been withheld in cases where refixation yields a positive entitlement. They
nd
contend that the interim order dated 22 February, 2013 did not sanction an
indefinite freezing of “payment cases”. In W.P.(C) 13584/2019, the
submission is fortified by the fact that pay fixation orders under IDA were
issued in early 2012 and, in two cases, gratuity sanction orders were also
issued, yet payments were withheld for years. The Petitioners allege
discrimination, arbitrariness, and a continuing illegality in withholding
retiral dues, besides claiming interest for prolonged delay.
23. In W.P.(C) 12187/2019, the Petitioners also seek implementation of
th th
the circular dated 30 September, 2011 and challenge the circular dated 24
May, 2013 as an impermissible override of a circular that remains operative.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 10 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

They emphasise that FCI had itself contemplated release of arrears to
th
beneficiaries against undertakings (circular dated 7 December, 2011) and
nd
contend that the post-22 February, 2013 internal committee route
th
culminating in the circular dated 24 May, 2013 institutionalised a one-sided
th
regime. They offer undertakings to secure restitution if the 30 September,
2011 circular is ultimately set aside.
24. FCI’s response to this set of payment-seeker petitions is that it has no
th
quarrel, in principle, with the circular dated 30 September, 2011; however,
its hands were tied since the circular (and the underlying DPE O.M.) were
nd
under challenge in the leading petitions. It reads the order dated 22
February, 2013 as permitting recoveries where amounts are legally found
not due, while reserving questions of entitlement for final adjudication. FCI
th
further asserts that the impugned circular dated 24 May, 2013 was issued to
safeguard the Corporation’s financial interests in this interregnum. It also
raises a practical concern: if payments are released to retirees at this stage
and the circular is ultimately set aside, recovery from retired employees may
prove difficult, particularly given the Corporation’s dependence on public
funds.
Analysis
Issue (i): Recoveries and adverse refixation against retired employees
st
25. The first set of Petitioners entered service prior to 1 January, 1989
under the CDA pattern and, as a matter of administrative practice, continued
on that pattern through successive promotions. This long continuation is not
a stray circumstance. It represents the service regime under which the
Corporation processed promotions, fixed pay, and ultimately settled retiral
dues. It is in that framework that the Petitioners organised their financial
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 11 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

affairs and retired.
th
26. The circular dated 30 September, 2011 seeks to retrospectively shift
such employees to the IDA pattern from the date of their first promotion on
st
or after 1 January, 1989 and, as a corollary, provides for adjustment of
allowances and recovery of what is described as “excess” payment.
27. Even if the dispute is projected as one of correct implementation of
DPE instructions, recoveries from retired employees stand on a distinct legal
footing. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih , has
delineated situations where recovery of amounts paid in excess would be
impermissible, including recovery from retired employees and recovery after
long years, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation by the employee.
The controlling rationale is not generosity but equity: once payments have
been allowed to settle for long periods, coercive recovery at the fag-end of
service or after retirement is treated as harsh and inequitable.
28. The Petitioners before the Court fall squarely within that protected
zone. The alleged “excess”, if any, does not arise from concealment or
misrepresentation by them. It arises from a belated refixation undertaken
decades after the relevant promotions, in a regime which the employer itself
did not apply contemporaneously. In such a setting, recovery is legally
unsustainable.
29. Withholding of terminal benefits on the same footing is equally
untenable. Retiral benefits are not held at the pleasure of the employer.
Where the foundation itself is a disputed refixation yielding an asserted
“excess”, the Corporation cannot secure itself by withholding gratuity, leave
encashment or other retiral dues from retirees who did not procure the
payment by misrepresentation.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 12 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

30. These conclusions are sufficient to grant effective relief in W.P.(C)
7659/2011 and W.P.(C) 3365/2012, without issuing any sweeping
pronouncement on the abstract interpretive debate as to whether
“promotion” can be treated as “appointment” for all purposes. The
determination is narrower and case-specific: in relation to these retired
Petitioners, the conversion regime cannot be enforced in a manner that
results in recovery or adverse financial refixation that rewrites settled retiral
outcomes after decades.
31. This approach also sits comfortably with the Supreme Court judgment
rd st
dated 3 May, 1990. The judgment recognises the 1 January, 1989 cut-off
and preserves an option for those already on the CDA pattern prior to that
th
date. Even Mr. Surender Singh, appointed on 27 December, 1989,
continued under the CDA pattern even through his first two promotions, and
was sought to be shifted to the IDA pattern only by way of the subsequent
retrospective re-fixation. The record further indicates that FCI itself had to
be directed in contempt proceedings to open an option window in 1993. The
law so declared by the Supreme Court is binding under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India, and its ratio cannot be diluted, circumvented, or
indirectly nullified by executive action. Against that backdrop, a forced
retrospective conversion which leaves retirees worse off would offend
fairness and would be arbitrary in its operation.
st
32. This conclusion, however, does not foreclose any pre-1 January,
1989 employee from seeking IDA benefits where that course is financially
favourable. Voluntary election remains consistent with the architecture of
the 1990 judgment. The relief for the first set is therefore framed as
protection against adverse conversion and recovery; it does not bar IDA
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 13 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

refixation in an individual case where the retiree affirmatively seeks it.
Issue (ii): The “recoveries proceed, payments remain pending” posture
33. W.P.(C) 9195/2015, W.P.(C) 13584/2019 and W.P.(C) 12187/2021
bring into sharp focus an administrative asymmetry which cannot be
sustained in public law. FCI has, on the one hand, proceeded to act on the
conversion framework in cases where refixation yields an “excess” and
recoveries are sought; on the other hand, it has withheld payments in cases
where the same refixation yields a payable amount, by placing reliance on
th th
the circular dated 24 May, 2013 and the reiteration dated 5 January, 2015.
34. FCI itself does not dispute, as a matter of principle, that employees
who benefit on refixation would be entitled to payment if the conversion
th
framework is applied. Its explanation is that the circular dated 30
September, 2011 is under challenge in the leading writ petitions, and that it
nd
proceeded with recoveries after the order dated 22 February, 2013 but kept
payment cases pending to avoid restitution difficulties if the circular is
ultimately set aside. That explanation may account for caution, but it cannot
justify a regime that is uneven in its operation and indefinite in its duration,
particularly when refixation and even sanction orders have already been
issued in certain case.
nd
35. The order dated 22 February, 2013 cannot be read as authorising
such a one-sided posture. That order dealt with interim protection against
recovery and recorded that entitlement would be examined at the time of
final disposal. It did not lay down a principle that recoveries may proceed
but payments must remain in abeyance indefinitely. Nor did it endorse a
regime in which the Corporation would apply the conversion only when it is
financially beneficial to the employer but postpone its corresponding
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 14 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

obligations when it is beneficial to the employee.
36. A public employer, particularly a State instrumentality, is bound by
the discipline of Article 14. It cannot selectively deploy a uniform scheme in
a manner that operates only as a sword and never as a shield. Once FCI
chooses to act upon the conversion framework in one class of cases, it must
apply it even-handedly, subject always to lawful safeguards.
37. The arbitrariness is even more pronounced in W.P.(C) 13584/2019.
The Petitioners have placed on record that: (i) pay fixation orders under the
IDA pattern were issued for all four Petitioners in early 2012; (ii) in two
cases, the competent authority also issued sanction orders for payment of
differential gratuity; and (iii) RTI responses indicate that similarly placed
officials in the same zone received release of pay arrears and enhanced
gratuity during May, 2012. In such a factual setting, continued non-release
for years, solely by invoking later internal circulars, is indefensible.
38. FCI’s concern that restitution may become difficult if payments are
released and the circular is later invalidated is not without substance, but it
cannot justify an open-ended withholding that results in discrimination. The
answer lies in a calibrated safeguard, not in denial. Where payment is
directed in implementation-seeker petitions, FCI can require beneficiaries to
furnish undertakings to refund/permit adjustment if, in subsequent
proceedings, a competent forum holds that the amount was not payable.
Such a mechanism secures the Corporation without permitting a
discriminatory “recoveries only” regime.
th th
39. Accordingly, the circulars dated 24 May, 2013 and 5 January, 2015,
to the extent they are applied as a rule to allow recoveries to proceed while
keeping payment cases pending, cannot be sustained. They cannot be read as
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 15 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

authorising “recoveries now, payments later (or never)”. Equality before law
requires even-handed application of any scheme that the Corporation elects
to operationalise.
40. In view of the conclusions recorded on Issue (i) and Issue (ii), nothing
further remains for adjudication in these petitions except to mould relief in a
manner that is workable across both sets of retirees. The directions that
follow are therefore framed to (a) protect the retirees in the challenge
petitions from coercive recoveries and adverse refixation, and (b) secure
even-handed release of payments in the implementation-seeker petitions,
subject to appropriate safeguards.
Directions
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 and W.P.(C) 3365/2012
41. These petitions are allowed in part in the following terms:
(i) No recovery shall be made from the Petitioners in these two writ
petitions from their salary, pension (if any), gratuity, leave encashment or
th
any other retiral dues, on the basis of the DPE O.M. dated 10 August, 2009,
th th
the DPE O.M. dated 12 July, 2010, and the FCI circular dated 30
September, 2011, insofar as such recovery is founded on retrospective CDA
st
to IDA refixation following promotions after 1 January, 1989.
(ii) Any amount already recovered from any Petitioner in these two writ
petitions shall be refunded within eight weeks, together with interest at 6%
per annum from the date of recovery till the date of refund. If no recovery
has been made, this direction will not operate.
(iii) The Respondents shall release, within eight weeks, any portion of
retiral benefits, leave encashment or salary dues withheld/deducted from any
Petitioner in W.P.(C) 7659/2011 and W.P.(C) 3365/2012 on the footing of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 16 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

recoverability arising from the CDA to IDA refixation. The
withheld/deducted amounts shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the
date of withholding/deduction till the date of actual release. If any part of the
withholding is attributable to reasons unconnected with this controversy, a
reasoned calculation statement confined to that component shall be
furnished within the same period.
W.P.(C) 9195/2015, W.P.(C) 13584/2019 and W.P.(C) 12187/2019
42. These petitions are allowed in the following terms:
(i) The Respondent Corporation shall not withhold payments and
benefits payable upon CDA to IDA refixation to the Petitioners in these writ
th
petitions merely by relying on the circular dated 24 May, 2013 and the
th
communication dated 5 January, 2015, insofar as these instruments have
been applied to postpone “payment cases” while permitting “recovery cases”
to proceed.
(ii) The Respondent Corporation shall compute and release, within ten
weeks, all amounts payable to the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 9195/2015, the
Petitioners in W.P.(C) 13584/2019, and the Petitioners in W.P.(C)
12187/2019 towards pay arrears and all consequential dues (including
differential gratuity, wherever payable), on the basis of IDA refixation from
st
the date of their first promotion on or after 1 January, 1989. In the case of
W.P.(C) 9195/2015, the relevant date of such promotion shall be taken as
th
26 December, 2008, as pleaded. The exercise shall remain subject to
verification from service records and application of the prescribed fitment
norms. This direction shall also extend to the Petitioners in W.P.(C)
12187/2019 as “left-out beneficiaries”, and their pay fixation and
consequential release shall not be withheld merely because their cases fall
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 17 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24

on the “payment” side of the same refixation regime.
(iii) The amounts found payable shall carry interest at 6% per annum from
st
1 March, 2013 till actual payment. This date is adopted because the blanket
interim restraint operating earlier was no longer in force after the order dated
nd
22 February, 2013, and continued withholding of amounts payable under
the refixation framework thereafter cannot be justified by a unilateral
administrative “payments pending” posture. Where any Petitioner
demonstrates from contemporaneous records that a specific component
stood sanctioned earlier (or payment was otherwise due earlier on
completion of pay fixation) and was withheld without any linkage to the
interim stay, the Respondent Corporation shall, upon a representation
confined to that component, pass a reasoned decision within four weeks and,
if warranted, recompute interest for that component accordingly.
th th
(iv) The circular dated 24 May, 2013 and the communication dated 5
January, 2015 are set aside to the limited extent they mandate, or have been
applied as mandating, a regime where recoveries are pursued while payment
cases are kept pending solely on the ground that the underlying circular
th
dated 30 September, 2011 is under challenge. They shall not be used to
justify an indefinite deferment of payments found payable under the
refixation exercise.
43. The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.


SANJEEV NARULA, J
FEBRUARY 25, 2026/ab
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7659/2011 & connected matters Page 18 of 18

Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.03.2026
15:24:24