RANJAN PRASAD vs POSTS

1 OA 609/2021


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA

O.A. 050/00609/2021


Reserved on: 01.10.2026
Pronounced on: 15.10.2026


Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member(A)


In the matter of:
Rajan Prasad,
S/o Shri Harinarayan Ex MTS (Tea Maker) in Bhojpur
Postal Division, Resident of Village Maulabagh PO-
Nawadha, District- Bhojpur-802301.


Patna
Bench
………….Applicant


VS.

1. The Union of India, through the Secretary cum DG,
Government of Ministry of Communications & IT,
Department of Posts, New Delhi- 110001.

2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna-
800001.
3. The General Manager Finance (Postal) GPO Campus,
Patna- 800001.
4. The Superintendent of Post, Bhojpur Division, Ara-
802301.

........ Respondents


For The Applicant(s): Mr. S. K. Tiwary, Counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. T. N. Thakur, Sr. CGSC



Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
OOP KABI KABI

2 OA 609/2021

O R D E R
[Per: Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A)]

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following
relief:
“8.1 The respondent authorities may be directed to fix his
pension on basis of last pay drawn in service grade pay 2400.
8.2 The respondent authorities may be directed to refund
the recovered amount from his retiral benefits with admissible
interest.
8.3 Any other relief/ reliefs as the applicant is entitled and
Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice.”
Patna
Bench


2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application
under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,
seeking correction of his pension on the basis of the last pay drawn
with Grade Pay of ₹ 2,400, refund of the amount recovered from his
retiral benefits, together with admissible interest, and other
consequential reliefs.
2.1 The applicant asserts that he was appointed as Tea Maker-
cum-Wash Boy in Bhojpur Postal Division with effect from
16.02.1973. He claims that his pay was fixed with Grade Pay of
₹ 1,800 pursuant to the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay
Commission and that he was entitled to the second Assured
Career Progression (ACP) on completion of 24 years of service.
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
OOP KABI KABI

3 OA 609/2021

2.2 He further claims that, after completion of 30 years of
service, he was granted the third Modified Assured Career
Progression (MACP) with Grade Pay of ₹ 2,400 with effect from
21.07.2010.

2.3 The applicant retired from service on 31.10.2019. His pension
was initially fixed provisionally. Subsequently, following scrutiny
of his service and pay records, the respondents revised his pay
fixation and issued the revised Pension Payment Order in April
₹
2021, taking his last pay as 36,100 in Pay Level 3 instead of
Patna
Bench
₹
37,200, as claimed by him.
2.4 The applicant alleges that the respondents also recovered an
amount from his retiral benefits on account of the earlier pay
fixation and that such recovery was impermissible in law.
3. Per contra, the respondents contend that, for the purpose of
reckoning qualifying service for financial upgradation in the case
of canteen employees, the applicable Department of Personnel and
Training Office Memorandum dated 01.09.2010 prescribes the
relevant starting point as 26.09.1983 or the actual date of
appointment on a regular basis, whichever is later.
According to them, the applicant's claim to the second ACP
could not be reckoned from the date asserted by him. They further
submit that the applicant's third MACP was reflected in the service
records with effect from 01.09.2008 and that his earlier pay fixation
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
OOP KABI KABI

4 OA 609/2021

was erroneous. Consequently, his pension was revised on the basis
of the corrected last pay drawn.
The respondents maintain that the correction was
undertaken after scrutiny of the service records and that the excess
amount paid on account of the erroneous fixation was recoverable.
They also dispute receipt of the applicant's representation dated
21.05.2020.
4. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder controverting the
material assertions made in the written statement.
Patna
Bench

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully
examined the pleadings and the documents placed on record. I
have considered the matter in its entirety and arrived at the
following conclusion:
5.1 The principal questions arising for consideration are whether
the applicant has established his entitlement to pension on the
basis of Grade Pay of ₹ 2,400 and whether recovery of the alleged
excess payment made on account of an erroneous pay fixation is
legally sustainable.

5.2 At the outset, it is necessary to distinguish between
correction of an erroneous pay fixation and recovery of amounts
already paid pursuant to such fixation. These are legally distinct
matters and must be examined independently. The fact that an
employee may not have been entitled to a particular pay benefit
does not, by itself, conclude whether amounts paid in the past
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
OOP KABI KABI

5 OA 609/2021

pursuant to the erroneous fixation can lawfully be recovered from
him.
5.3 As regards the applicant's claim to Grade Pay of ₹ 2,400, the
burden lies upon him to establish the specific financial
upgradation or pay-fixation order conferring that entitlement and
the applicable rules under which the benefit became admissible. A
claim based merely on the asserted completion of a particular
period of service cannot, by itself, establish entitlement to a
financial upgradation without examination of the applicable
Patna
Bench
qualifying-service provisions and the relevant service records.
5.4 The respondents have specifically relied upon the Office
Memorandum dated 01.09.2010 and the service records to contend
that the applicant's earlier pay fixation was erroneous. The
respondents are well within their right to examine the whole
service records prior to the time of superannuation of an employee
for correct pay/pension fixation. The applicant has not filed a
rejoinder to controvert these assertions. Nor do the materials
described in the pleadings establish that the applicant was legally
₹
entitled to Grade Pay of 2,400 on the date immediately preceding
retirement.
5.5 In these circumstances, the applicant has not established a
sufficient basis for directing restoration of the claimed Grade Pay
of ₹ 2,400 merely because that amount was reflected in an earlier
pay fixation. An erroneous fixation does not create an indefeasible
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
OOP KABI KABI

6 OA 609/2021

right to continue receiving a benefit contrary to the governing
rules. Accordingly, the respondents' correction of the applicant's
pay fixation and consequential revision of pension cannot be set
aside solely on the ground that the earlier fixation was more
favourable to him.
5.6 However, the conclusion that the respondents could correct
the pay fixation does not automatically validate the recovery of
amounts already paid. The legality of such recovery must be tested
independently against the principles governing recovery of excess
Patna
Bench
payments from government employees.
5.7 It is now well settled that recovery is not permissible in the
following situations in view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih that
was formalized by the DoPT, Government of India by issuing O.M.
No. 18/03/2015 Estt. (Pay-I) dated 02.03.2016:-
“(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and
Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and ‘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 has
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.”
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
OOP KABI KABI

7 OA 609/2021

5.8 In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the Tribunal is of the
considered opinion that there is nothing wrong in the respondents
carrying out correction of wrong fixation of pay. However, they
are prohibited from making any recovery of past excess payment
made on account of such wrong fixation in view of the aforesaid
provisions. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer),
(2015) 4 SCC 334, the Hon’ble Supreme Court identified categories
of cases in which recovery of excess payments from employees
Patna
Bench
would be impermissible because of the inequitable and harsh
consequences involved. The judgment also recognises that the
permissibility of recovery must be assessed in the light of the
circumstances identified therein.
The principles laid down in Rafiq Masih are relevant to the
present case. The applicant retired on 31.10.2019, whereas the
respondents' own case is that the recovery arose from the
subsequent correction of his pay fixation. The applicant was,
therefore, already a retired employee when the recovery was
effected. Further, he served as an MTS (Tea Maker), and the
respondents have not established that the recovery falls outside the
protection recognised in the aforesaid judgment.
No material has been placed before us to establish that the excess
payment was obtained by the applicant through fraud,
misrepresentation or any deliberate concealment of material facts.
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
OOP KABI KABI

8 OA 609/2021

The respondents' case, as pleaded, is that the earlier fixation was
erroneous and that the error was attributable to the pay-fixation
process undertaken by the departmental authorities. In the absence
of material establishing culpable conduct on the part of the
applicant, the recovery cannot be sustained merely on the ground
that the department has subsequently discovered an error in its
earlier calculation.
The same distinction between correction of an erroneous
payment and recovery of amounts already disbursed is consistent
Patna
Bench
with the principles reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, (2022) 5 SCC 545. The authority's
power to correct an error does not dispense with the requirement
that recovery must independently satisfy the applicable legal
standards.

5.9 Consequently, while the respondents were entitled to
examine the applicant's service records and determine the pay and
pension lawfully admissible to him, the recovery of past excess
payments from his retiral benefits is not sustainable in the
circumstances of this case. The amount so recovered is liable to be
refunded. Such refund shall not, however, be construed as
recognition of the applicant's claim to Grade Pay of ₹ 2,400 or as a
direction to restore the earlier erroneous pay fixation.
5.10 The applicant has also sought interest on the recovered
amount. Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the relief
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
OOP KABI KABI

9 OA 609/2021

granted, I do not consider it appropriate to award interest in the
absence of a sufficient basis on the material placed before us.
6. In view of the above observation, the Original Application is
partly allowed in the following terms:

(a) The respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount
which was made from his retiral benefits on account of wrong
fixation of pay within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of this order.
(b) So far as the pay fixation is concerned, as observed above,
Patna
Bench
the respondents are well within their right to correct this wrong as
they have duly informed the applicant before going ahead with
such correction. Hence, there is no violation of principle of natural
justice. The revised pay fixation of the applicant is justified and
requires no interference by the Tribunal.
(c) No order as to interest and costs.
Sd/-
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra)
Administrative Member


Srk
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
OOP KABI KABI