RAM PRAKASH GUPTA DEAD SUBSTITUTED BY SMT DHAN DEVI GUPTA vs Union Of India

CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00329 of 2016 Dhan Devi Gupta Vs. UOI & Ors.


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00329 of 2016
st
Dated, this 31 day of August, 2026


Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial
Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Smt. Dhan Devi Gupta, aged about 76 years, W/o Late Shri Ram
Prakash Gupta, Resident of 414, Eldeco-1,Bangla Bazar, Lucknow.
….. Applicant

By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar

VERSUS

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication &
IT, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. The Chief Postmaster General U.P., Lucknow.

3. The Postmaster General, Kanpur Region, Kanpur.

4. Superintendent of Post Offices, Fatehgarh Division, Fatehgarh.

…..Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
In this case relating to pay and allowances, the original applicant
Ram Prakash Gupta (substituted after his demise by his wife Dhan
Devi Gupta) has sought following reliefs:
“(a) That this Hon’ble may kindly graciously be pleased to set aside and
quash the orders dated 18.07.2007 as contained in Annexure No. A-1
and restore the pay/leave salary of applicant to Rs. 7900/-drawn and
paid to him during Aug. 2005 and Sept. 2005 with other allowances.
(b) Direct opposite parties to fix the pay of applicant in revised pay scale
of Rs. 7450-11500 in accordance with RP Rules 2008 w.e.f.
01.01.2006 correctly with reference to his pay of Rs. 7900/- with
grade pay of Rs. 4600/- and revise his pension w.e.f. 22.02.2006 and
pay arrears with interest @ 15% cumulative.
(c) Refund the amount of recovery made from the applicant with interest
@ 15% cumulative.
(d) Any other relief deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the
case with cost of O.A.”
Page 1 of 6

CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00329 of 2016 Dhan Devi Gupta Vs. UOI & Ors.


2. The facts of the case are that the original applicant Ram
Prakash Gupta was appointed as Clerk on 14.05.1965. He was allowed
to work as Deputy Post Master Higher Selection Grade-I (HSG-I) vide
order dated 16.08.2003. He proceeded on leave from 23.09.2005 and
remained on leave till his voluntary retirement on 22.02.2006. His pay
was reduced from Rs. 7,900 to Rs. 7,550 with effect from 01.08.2005
vide order dated 19.10.2005 and recovery of Rs. 5,431 was made. The
applicant represented on 14.02.2006 which was rejected by the
respondents vide order dated 18.07.2007. Aggrieved, the applicant has
preferred this OA.
3. The applicant’s contention is that his pay was reduced while he
was on leave with retrospective effect without issuing any notice to him
by respondent no. 4 who is not empowered to downgrade the post of
HSG-I. He further contends that by such reduction, the respondents
have reduced his pension as well. He finally contends that the recovery
effected is impermissible in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (2015) 4
SCC 334 .
4. The respondents state that the applicant was given Lower
Selection Grade from 01.11.1983 under One Time Bound Promotion
(OTBP) and HSG-II from 01.11.1993 under Biennial Cadre Review
(BCR). They contend that the applicant was allowed to work as Deputy
Post Master in HSG-I on temporary basis at his own request and cost
vide order dated 16.08.2003 keeping in view the importance of the post
and as the applicant was senior most in HSG-II; but the post of Post
Master HSG-I, Fatehgarh Post Office in the scale of Rs. 6,500 – 10,500
was downgraded to HSG-II cadre in pay scale of Rs. 5,000 – 8,000 with
effect from completion of one year of service of the applicant (i.e. from
01.08.2004) and the applicant’s pay was regulated @ Rs. 7,550 with
Page 2 of 6

CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00329 of 2016 Dhan Devi Gupta Vs. UOI & Ors.


effect from 01.08.2005 in BCR cadre as per the order of competent
authority.
5. We have heard both the parties.
6.1 It is noted that the applicant was ordered to work on the post of
Deputy Post Master HSG-I vide order dated 16.08.2003 extracted below:
“ Keeping in view the importance for the post of Postmaster (HSG-I)
and Dy. Postmaster (HSG-I) Fatehgarh H.O., the following local
arrangement is hereby made with immediate effect:
1. Sh. Atar Singh, SPM Bishnugarh being senior most BCR official in the
Division, is ordered to work on the post of Postmaster (HSG-I) Fatehgarh
H.O. purely on temporary basis till further orders at his own request and
cost.
2. Sh. R.P. Gupta designated SPM Farrukhabad S.O. being senior
most BCR official is ordered to work on the post of Dy. Postmaster
(HSG-I) Fatehgarh H.O. purely on temporary basis till further orders
at his own request and cost.
The above officials should clearly understand that their
arrangements on the above post is purely on temporary basis,
which is liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any
reason therefor. They shall have no right or claim for their regular
absorption on the post.
The charge report should be submitted.”
(emphasis supplied)
It is evident from the above that the applicant was ordered to work as
Deputy Post Master HSG-I keeping in view the importance of the post
and at the applicant’s own request and cost. Further, the appointment
was temporary and it was liable to be terminated at any time without
assigning reason. Finally, the appointment did not confer any right to
claim regular absorption to the post.
6.2 It appears from the applicant’s representation dated 14.02.2006
that he was subsequently ordered to work as Post Master HSG-I
Fatehgrah vide memo dated 28.07.2004. The downgradation of post
occupied by the applicant was communicated to him vide order dated
19.10.2005 quoted below:
“No. Acctt/Misc/Corr/R.P.Gupta/2005 Dt 19.10.2005
Page 3 of 6

CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00329 of 2016 Dhan Devi Gupta Vs. UOI & Ors.


Sub: Drawal of Pay and Allowances in HSG-II Cadre
Ref: Your application dt 18.10.2005
On the above subject, it is to intimate that in pursuance of SPOs
Fatehgarh Memo No. B-8(b)/HSG-I/Chap.II dt 07.10.1005 the post of
Post Master (HSG-I) Fatehgarh H.O. in the scale of Rs. 6,500 –
10,500 is hereby ordered to be downgraded in HSG-II cadre in the
scale of Rs. 5,000 – 8,000 wef completion of one year service wef
01.08.2004 onwards. Hence your pay is regulated @ Rs. 7,550 wef
01.08.2005 in BCR cadre. ”
(emphasis supplied)
It is noted from the above quoted communication that the applicant’s
pay scale was downgraded from HSG-I to HSG-II in October, 2005 with
retrospective effect from 01.08.2004 after completion of one year’s
service in HSG-I grade.
6.3 The applicant’s representation was disposed of by the
respondents vide their impugned order dated 18.07.2007 in the
following manner:
“ Sub: Regarding approval of officiating period from 23.08.2003 to
22.02.2006 F/N in HSG-I cadre beyond one year – case of Shri Ram
Prakash Gupta retired offg. P.M. Fatehgarh.
Please refer to your application dated 04.04.2007 regarding approval of
officiating period beyond one year in HSG-I cadre.
I am directed to inform you that your case under reference has been
considered and decided by the DG (Posts) New Delhi vide Postal
Directorate letter No. 4-7/2007-SPB-II dated 4/5.07.2007 as under:
“It is observed that the official was a BCR official and not a
regular HSG-II (NB). BCR is placement in higher scale of pay and
not a promotion to HSG-II cadre. The official has to put into
qualifying service of three years in HSG-II (NB) post on regular
basis for promotion to HSG-I post. In view of the position, the
temporary arrangement made in HSG-I cadre on ad-hoc basis is
irregular and cannot be regularized”. ”
(emphasis supplied)
Here, it is noted that the respondents have treated the temporary
arrangement made by posting the applicant in HSG-I cadre itself as
irregular.
7.1 It is not in dispute that the applicant was ordered to work in
HSG-I cadre by the respondents as a temporary arrangement. It is also
Page 4 of 6

CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00329 of 2016 Dhan Devi Gupta Vs. UOI & Ors.


not in dispute that the post held by the applicant in HSG-I cadre was
downgraded by the respondents with retrospective effect.
7.2 Admittedly, the applicant’s posting in HSG-I cadre was a
temporary arrangement and it was terminable without notice. Even so,
we cannot lose sight of the fact that the temporary arrangement of
posting the applicant in HSG-I cadre was made by the respondents
themselves citing the importance of the posts of Post Master and
Deputy Post Master at Fatehgarh. We are unable to appreciate how
such termination of arrangement or down gradation of the post could
have been given effect retrospectively by the respondents after having
taken work from the applicant and having disbursed the pay of HSG-I
cadre to him. In our view, such retrospective downgradation is hit by
the vice of arbitrariness.
7.3 It is also observed that the recovery resulting from the
retrospective downgradation of the post is barred in terms of Rafiq
Masih (supra) as the recovery took place within a year of the
applicant’s retirement on 22.02.2006.
7.4 We are also at a loss to comprehend the view taken by the
respondents terming the temporary arrangement of the applicant’s
posting in HSG-I cadre as irregular vide their impugned order dated
18.07.2007 when the respondents themselves took a conscious decision
to order the applicant to work on HSG-I cadre post in view of the
importance of the post. In our view, the respondents are estopped from
negating the temporary arrangement for the period from which it was
brought into force and till its termination or downgradation of the post.
7.5 To conclude, the retrospective downgradation of the post of
HSG-I cadre held by the applicant is held impermissible. Resultantly,
the applicant is entitled to benefits of HSG-I cadre from the date it was
Page 5 of 6

CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00329 of 2016 Dhan Devi Gupta Vs. UOI & Ors.


brought into force till the date it was terminated and without such
termination (or downgradation) having retrospective effect.
8.1 In view of the foregoing, the order dated 18.07.2007 is quashed
and set aside to the extent it has the effect of endorsing recovery from
the applicant.
8.2 The respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered to
the present applicant with interest as per Bank rate applicable within
three months of receipt of certified copy of this order.
8.3 This OA is disposed of in above terms.
8.4 Associated MAs also stand disposed of.
8.5 Parties shall bear their own costs.


(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)




Vidya

Vidya Ben
Waghela
Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Date: 2026.09.07
15:32:04 +05'30'
Page 6 of 6