VIJAYAN N vs REVENUE

1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH,
ERNAKULAM

Original Application No. 180/00424/2025

nd
Wednesday, this the 2 day of September, 2026

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Member (A)

Vijayan N., aged 65 years, S/o. O. Narayanan,
Deputy Commissioner (Retired),
Office of the Central Tax and Central Excise,
Central Tax and Central Excise (Audit),
C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Ernakulam,
Pin – 682 018, residing at – Aswathy, CC 48/201 D,
Thanickal, Elamakkara PO, Pin – 682 026. ..... Applicant

(By Advocate: Ms. Sreekala T.N.)

V e r s u s

1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the
Government of India, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, Pin – 110 001.

2. The Secretary to the Government,
Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance,
New Delhi, Pin – 110 001.

3. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
New Delhi, Pin – 110 001, represented by its Secretary.




Sebastian Antony 2026.09.02 16:56:25+05'30'

2
4. The Principal Commissioner, Central Tax,
Central Excise & Customs, Central Revenue Building,
I.S. Press Road, Ernakulam, Pin – 682 018.

5. The Commissioner, Central Tax & Central Excise (Audit),
C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Kochi, Pin – 682 018.

6. The Deputy Controller of Accounts, Office of the Deputy
Controller of Accounts, Central Boad of Indirect Taxes and
Customs, Southern Zone, 26/1, UG Salai, Nungambakkam,
Chennai, Pin – 600 034.

7. Senior Accounts Officer, Pay & Accounts Office,
Central Goods and Service Tax (GST),
Central Revenue Building, IS Press Road,
Ernakulam, Pin – 682 018. ..... Respondents

[By Advocate: Mr. M.N. Manmadan, SCGSC (R1-7)]

This Original Application having been heard on 12.08.2026, the
Tribunal on 02.09.2026 delivered the following:
O R D E R
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –
The sole applicant who has retired as a Deputy Commissioner,
Central Tax & Central Excise, aggrieved by the retrospective refixation of
pay with effect from 1.1.2006 by which pay was reduced to a lower level
by Annexures A1 and A2 orders dated 9.3.2020 and 11.3.2020
respectively and the consequential recovery of Rs. 1,19,871/- from his
retirement benefits has approached this Tribunal.

Sebastian Antony 2026.09.02 16:56:25+05'30'

3
2. The applicant joined as an Inspector under the respondents on
20.6.1984. He was promoted as a Superintendent in PB-2 with Grade Pay
of Rs. 4,800/-. After four years he was granted Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/-
nd
in PB-2 with effect from 1.1.2006. Later he was granted the 2 ACP in
PB-3 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- with effect from 20.6.2008. He was
promoted as an Assistant Commissioner on 22.10.2014 in the same pay
scale. Just prior to his retirement on 30.5.2020, he was issued with
Annexure A3 dated 14.5.2020, the revised pay fixation statement by
which his pay was reduced in supersession of pay fixation order dated
4.12.2012.

3. According to the applicant, he came to know from Annexures A1
and A2, copies which he had obtained, though not served on him
officially that while scrutinizing the service book of the applicant before
th
his retirement, 7 respondent noticed the increment granted to the
applicant as per the Department of Expenditure OM dated 19.3.2012.
th th
They sought a clarification from the 6 respondent and 5 respondent
issued Annexure A1 clarifying that since non-functional upgradation was
granted to the applicant with effect from 1.1.2006 in PB-2 with Grade
Pay of Rs. 5,400/-, the previous scale of pay in PB-2 with Grade Pay of

Sebastian Antony 2026.09.02 16:56:25+05'30'

4
Rs. 4,800/- became inoperative as on 1.1.2006 for grant of annual
increment as per DoE OM dated 19.3.2012. Based on Annexure A1
th th
clarification from the 6 respondent the 7 respondent by Annexure A2
th
directed the 5 respondent to fix the pay with effect from 1.1.2006.
Following that, Annexure A3 revised pay fixation statement was issued to
th
the 4 respondent. Essentially, the increment of 1.1.2006 was proposed to
be withdrawn.

4. Immediately after service of Annexure A3, applicant retired from
service, and a sum of Rs. 1,19,871/- was recovered from his retirement
benefits, evidenced by Annexure A4 due and drawn statement.

st
5. According to the applicant, his annual increment fell due on the 1
of June every year. When a uniform date of annual increment was
introduced by CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, it was prescribed that employees
completing six months and above in the revised pay structure as on
1.1.2006, would be eligible to be granted an increment. The revised pay
was fixed with effect from 1.1.2006. Hence, the first increment after
fixation of pay on 1.1.2006 in the revised pay structure was granted on
1.7.2006, for those employees to whom the date of next increment fell

Sebastian Antony 2026.09.02 16:56:25+05'30'

5
between 1.7.2006 to 1.1.2007. Since there was no mention about
employees whose annual increments fell due between February, 2006 to
June, 2006, the President in exercise of powers conferred under the CCS
(RP) Rules, 2008 directed to fix increment that fell due between
February, 2006 to June, 2006 on 1.1.2006 in pre-revised scale as a one-
time measure and thereafter, the next increment in the revised pay
structure on 1.7.2006. Annexure A5 is the said communication. In the
light of Annexure A5 the annual increment of the applicant was fixed
notionally on 1.1.2006 in the pre-revised scale, so that he could draw next
increment after completion of six months on 1.7.2006. Now this was
sought to be withdrawn by stating that the previous pay scale of PB-2
with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- became inoperative as on 1.1.2006.

6. According to the applicant, he came across Annexure A6
clarification issued by the Department of Expenditure in an identical
matter concerning one Balraj Menon, a similarly placed employee.
According to Annexure A6, the increment granted in accordance with
OM dated 19.3.2012 was correct and directed to review the refixation
accordingly.


Sebastian Antony 2026.09.02 16:56:25+05'30'

6
7. Claiming that the applicant being a similarly placed employee was
entitled for the said benefit, Annexure A7 representation was submitted.
This was replied by Annexure A8 dated 25.1.2024, wherein it was stated
that Annexure A6 issued in the case of Balraj Menon in OA No. 445 of
2021 holds no common nature. The applicant submits that by Annexure
A9 order of this Tribunal in OA No. 77 of 2022 similarly situated persons
like applicant were granted the benefit, relying on Annexure A1.

8. Accordingly, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the
following reliefs:
“ (i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Annexures A1, A2, A3 &
A8 and quash the same;

(ii) Declare that the applicant is entitled for the benefit of Annexure A5;

(iii) Direct the respondents to re-fix the pay of the applicant by granting
one increment as on 1.1.2006 in terms of Annexure A5 with all consequential
benefits including arrears of pay and pension with interest.

(iv) Direct the respondents to reimburse Rs. 1,19,871/- recovered from
retirement benefits, to the applicant with an interest. ”


9. Respondents appeared and filed a detailed reply statement traversing
the allegations made in the Original Application. It was stated that
regarding the case of the applicant, Deputy Controller of Accounts, CBIC
clarified that since the applicant had been granted NFU (Non-Functional

Sebastian Antony 2026.09.02 16:56:25+05'30'

7
Upgradation) in the higher pay scale of PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.
5,400/- with effect from 1.1.2006, his earlier pay scale of PB-2 with
Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- became inoperative. Accordingly, Pay and
Accounts Officer was instructed to revise the pay fixation of the applicant
by withdrawing the one-time increment that had been granted earlier.
Accordingly, his pay was revised as per the pay fixation order dated
19.5.2020. Since the recovery of excess amount was not permissible in
the case of retired officers, his leave encashment was released after
deducting recovery of Rs. 1,19,871/-. Applicant had given an undertaking
dated 18.5.2020 that any dues or arrears payable to the Government may
be deducted from his leave encashment amount at the time of final
settlement. It was further stated that, in the case of Balraj Menon who had
filed OA No. 445 of 2021, an order dated 15.3.2023 was issued, which
was applicable only to that applicant and cannot be extended to the case
of the applicant herein. Accordingly, they sought for rejection of the OA.

10. Annexure A3 is the revised pay fixation statement dated 14.5.2020
which is under challenge. By this revised pay fixation statement, the pay
fixation issued by the Customs Division of Trivandrum dated 4.12.2012
of the Assistant Commissioner, Customs Division, Trivandrum was

Sebastian Antony 2026.09.02 16:56:25+05'30'

8
sought to be revised. Admittedly it was issued few days prior to the
retirement of the applicant on 31.5.2020.

11. According to the respondents, which is also the case of the
applicant, it was necessitated consequent to an alleged wrong payment
made to him by the earlier pay fixation order. According to the
respondents, prior to the retirement of the applicant his service book was
forwarded to the Pay and Accounts Officer, Kochi by communication
dated 16.1.2020 for verification prior to retirement. The applicant was
th
drawing his annual increment in the month of February as per the VI
CPC. His pay and allowances were fixed after adding one increment in
the pre-revised scale from Rs. 9,250/- to Rs. 9,500/- in terms of the office
memorandum dated 19.3.2012. Further, he was granted the non-
functional grade in PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- in terms of Rule 4
of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. As he had joined on 29.8.1997 as
Superintendent, his pay was fixed at Rs. 18,350/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.
5,400/- with effect from 1.1.2006. The Senior Accounts Officer,
Ernakulam by Annexure A2 communication dated 11.3.2020, informed
the office that since the applicant had been granted a one-time increment
in accordance with the OM dated 19.3.2012 and had also been extended

Sebastian Antony 2026.09.02 16:56:25+05'30'

9
the benefit of non-functional upgradation to the higher grade in PB-2 with
Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- with effect from 1.1.2006, the matter regarding
admissibility of one time increment as per the OM was referred to the
Deputy Controller of Accounts, CBIC, Southern Zone, Chennai for
clarification.

12. The Deputy Controller of Accounts, CBIC by Annexure A1
communication dated 9.3.2020 clarified that the applicant had been
granted NFU in the higher pay scale of PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.
5,400/- with effect from 1.1.2006 and hence his earlier pay scale of PB-2
with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- became inoperative from that day. Based
on this clarification, the Pay and Accounts Officer instructed the
concerned office to revise the pay fixation of the applicant by
withdrawing the one-time increment that had been granted earlier and his
pay was revised as per Annexure A3 pay fixation statement dated
19.5.2020.

13. The applicant has a specific contention that neither notice was given
to him prior to Annexures A1 to A3, nor his explanation sought for.
Annexures A1 and A2 were not served on him, it was contended.

Sebastian Antony 2026.09.02 16:56:25+05'30'

10
Admittedly, the respondents have no case that Annexures A1 and A2 were
served on him and his explanation regarding Annexure A3 pay fixation, in
supersession of the earlier pay fixation dated 4.12.2012, was sought.
Annexures A1 and A2 being internal communications need not be served
on the applicant. Hence, he cannot have a grievance. However, the
applicant was entitled to notice prior to Annexure A3, especially when an
order adversely affecting him and considerably reducing his pay was
taken. At the time of retirement, a substantial amount of Rs. 1,19,871/-
was unilaterally deducted from the retirement benefits in this regard.

14. The above recovery was sought to be defended by the respondents
on the premise that it was consequent to the revised pay fixation and a
mistake that had occurred in 2012 was rectified. The applicant had
specifically given an undertaking as Annexure R1 dated 18.5.2020
unconditionally authorizing the respondents to deduct from his leave
encashment, any of the arrears to be paid to the Government. The factual
premise on which the undertaking was given was that he was retiring on
superannuation on 31.5.2020. It is pertinent to note that this undertaking
was obtained from him on the eve of Annexure A3. Admittedly he was
not aware of the revised pay fixation. He was not even informed about it

Sebastian Antony 2026.09.02 16:56:25+05'30'

11
and an omnibus undertaking was obtained from him to pay dues/arrears
to be paid to the Government. Such a blanket undertaking that too
obtained prior to the eve of his retirement and after having taken a
decision to refix pay, to his prejudice. It was not procured at the time of
making any payment and hence, cannot be used against the applicant at
all. Evidently, before issuing the revised pay fixation statement the
undertaking was got obtained. This cannot be accepted and no reliance
can be placed on the said undertaking to defend the Original Application
and the challenge to Annexure A3 or any recovery made thereon.

15. To assail Annexure A3, the learned counsel for the applicant
nd
vehemently relied on Annexure A6, the explanation given by the 2
respondent Department of Expenditure in the case of Shri Balraj Menon.
According to Annexure A6, the increment granted in accordance with
DOE’s OM dated 19.3.2012 (Annexure A5) is correct and it was directed
to review the pay fixation accordingly. In the representation submitted by
the applicant as Annexure A7, he has specifically relied on the above.
However, the stand taken in Annexure A8 reply is that Annexure A6 was
issued in the case of Balraj Menon in OA No. 445 of 2021 and it holds no
common nature.

Sebastian Antony 2026.09.02 16:56:25+05'30'

12
16. The question whether such a stand is sustainable and whether the
OM of the Department of Expenditure dated 19.3.2012 is a decision in
rem so as to apply to all similarly situated persons came up before this
Tribunal in OA No. 77 of 2022 and connected cases. A copy of the order
is produced as Annexure A9. In that, the applicants had contended that the
stand of the Pay and Accounts Officer that statutory benefit granted to the
applicant in terms of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 becomes inoperative was
unreasonable and lacked legal authority. The relaxation granted in favour
of Balraj Menon by the Department of Expenditure by communication
dated 15.2.2023 produced as Annexure A6 in this OA was considered by
the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the said OA. After the analysis of
the facts, it was held that the stand taken by the Pay and Accounts Officer
was unreasonable and contrary to the established position of law and the
applicants therein were entitled for fixation of pay in terms of
clarification issued by the Ministry of Expenditure in the case of Shri
Balraj Menon, as a competent authority. It was held by this Tribunal that
the clarification was not issued as an order in the case of a person, but has
rather clarified the interpretation of principle of pay fixation in a
particular situation and therefore cannot be treated as a clarification in

Sebastian Antony 2026.09.02 16:56:25+05'30'

13
personam , but was rather a clarification in rem .

17. The above decision squarely applies to the facts of this case.
Accordingly, the stand taken in Annexures A1 and A2 is not sustainable.
Being an interdepartmental communication that is not assailable.
However, Annexure A3 dated 19.5.2020 is not legally sustainable and it is
quashed. Accordingly, the pay fixation issued by Customs Division of
Trivandrum dated 4.12.2012 will hold the field and the applicant will be
entitled for all benefits thereupon. Consequently, the amount of Rs.
1,19,871/- shall be repaid to the applicant within a period of two months
from today. It is also directed that any differential amount which the
applicant is entitled consequent to Annexure A3 will also be paid to the
applicant. Appropriate orders shall be issued and the entire arrears, if any,
paid to the applicant as expeditiously as possible within a period of two
months from today, failing which the entire amount will carry 8% interest
till payment.





Sebastian Antony 2026.09.02 16:56:25+05'30'

14
18. The Original Application is allowed as above. No order as to costs.






(BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER





“SA”

Sebastian Antony 2026.09.02 16:56:25+05'30'

15
Original Application No. 180/00424/2025

APPLICANT’S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 – True copy of the letter No.
Dy.CA/CBEC/SZ/Chennai/2019-20/770, dated
th
9.3.2020 issued from the office of the 6 respondent.

Annexure A2 – True copy of the letter No.
PAO/CGST/CHN/Pension/2019-20/394, dated
th
11.3.2020 issued by the 7 respondent.

Annexure A3 – True copy of the revised pay fixation C. No.
II/24/05/2016 Audit, dated 19.5.2020 issued from the
th
office of the 5 respondent.

Annexure A4 – True copy of the due and drawn statement indicating
the recovery of Rs. 1,19,871/- for the period from
1.1.2006 to 31.12.2015.

Annexure A5 – True copy of the office memorandum No. 10/02/2011-
nd
E.III/A, dated 19.3.2012 issued by the 2 respondent.

Annexure A6 – True copy of the clarification bearing No. 08-03/2023-
nd
E-III(A), dated 15.2.2023 issued by the 2 respondent.

Annexure A7 – True copy of the representation dated 27.11.2023
addressed to the Chief Accounts Officer.

Annexure A8 – True copy of the communication
GADT/II/(24)/38/2023-ADMN-O/o COMMR-CGST-
ADT-KOCHI/111/2024 dated 25.1.2024 issued by the
th
5 respondent.

Annexure A9 – True copy of the order of this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA
77 of 2022 and connected cases, dated 24.10.2024.



Sebastian Antony 2026.09.02 16:56:25+05'30'

16
RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES

Annexure R1 – True copy of the undertaking submitted by the
applicant dated 18.5.2020.

Annexure R2 – True copy of the para 2(f) of OM No. 38/64/98-
P&PW(F), dated 5.10.1999 issued by Department of
Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare, Ministry of Personnel,
PG & Pensions, Government of India.

Annexure R3 – True copy of the para 2(vi) of OM No. 38/64/98-
P&PW(F), dated 01.05.2012 issued by Department of
Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare, Ministry of Personnel,
PG & Pensions, Government of India.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

Sebastian Antony 2026.09.02 16:56:25+05'30'