Jyoti Prasad Das vs INTELLIGENCE BUREAU

1

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH

Original Application No. 196/2024
HON’BLE MR RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sri Jyoti Prasad Das
S/o Late Bapan Chandra Das,
Assistant Central Intelligence Officer-I (Retired)
R/o. Barua Chuburi, P.O. Nikamul,
P.S. Tezpur, District- Sonitpur,
Assam, Pin Code — 784001
Phone- 7896743465
--Applicant
-vs-

1. The Union of India,
By its Secretary (Home),
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi 110 001.

2. The Director,
Intelligence Bureau,
Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),
Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi 110 001,

3. The Deputy Director,
Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India,
P.O. — R.K, Mission, Itanagar
Arunachal Pradesh, PIN Code- 791113.

4. Regional Pay and Accounts Officer (IB),
Digitally signed by
NENGDEILHEN SINGSIT
NENGDEILHEN SINGSIT
O.A. No/196/2024

2

Ministry of Home Affairs,
High Stand, Laitumkhrah, Shillong
Meghalaya, PIN Code- 793003

---Respondents

Present:
For applicant(s): Sri S. Nath, Ms. R. Bharali

For respondents: Sri A. Kundu, Addl. CGSC

Date of hearing: 05.08.2026

Date of Order: 10.08.2026


ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
This application has been preferred to seek the
following relief:
“8.1. That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to set aside the
order of recovery of Rs 1,59,900/- out of the admissible
gratuity is concerned as stated in PPO No. 234082400573
dated 26.03.2024.
8.2. The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the
respondents to refund back the recovered amount of
gratuity of Rs 1,59,900/-. to the applicant with interest @
12% p.a.
8.3. Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.”

Digitally signed by
NENGDEILHEN SINGSIT
NENGDEILHEN SINGSIT
O.A. No/196/2024

3

2. Applicant was appointed as Security Assistant in the
respondent department on 11.05.1987. After completing 37
years of unblemished service, he retired on superannuation
on 30.04.2024 as Assistant Central Intelligence Officer-I. That
PPO No. 234082400573 dated 26.03.2024 was issued in
respect of gratuity payable to the applicant.
He is aggrieved as in the said PPO, Rs. 1,59,900/- has
been shown as the recovery amount out of the admissible
gratuity of Rs. 15,39,450/-, stating retirement gratuity
payable to the applicant to be Rs. 13,79,550/-. The
applicant retired on 30.04.2024 and Rs. 1,59,900/- was
recovered from his gratuity.
3. Sri S. Nath, learned counsel for the applicant submits
that, the respondents vide Circular dated 24.07.2019 issued
an order regarding decision for grant of Hardship
Allowances, Tough Location Allowance (TLA) and Ration
Money Allowances (RMA), Special Duty Allowances (SDA)
and Special Compensatory Allowances (SCA) to the
officials of SBI, Itanagar as they are posted at hard and
Digitally signed by
NENGDEILHEN SINGSIT
NENGDEILHEN SINGSIT
O.A. No/196/2024

4

tough location. Accordingly, the Group ‘C’ employees
including the applicant was granted and paid TLA of Rs.
1,59,900 while he was in service. The applicant retired on
30.04.2024.
3.1. That after his retirement, the respondents issued an
order for recovery of Rs. 1,59,900/- from his gratuity. This
recovery from gratuity of the applicant has been done
behind his back without any notice or show cause and
affording him any opportunity of being heard, which is
violative of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih [(2014) 8 SCC 883 ]
and DoPT OM dated 06.02.2014, 02.03.2016 and 03.10.2022.
The applicant has submitted a representation on 05.10.2024
to refund back the recovered amount of Rs. 1,59,900/- but
to no result.
4. Respondents in their reply have stated that a
Circular dated 24.07.2019 was issued regarding allowances
to be granted to the officials posted in the State of
Arunachal Pradesh. In the same circular, it was also
Digitally signed by
NENGDEILHEN SINGSIT
NENGDEILHEN SINGSIT
O.A. No/196/2024

5

specified that an undertaking was to be given by the
employee that overpayment, if any, made towards these
allowances would be refunded as and when demanded
and the applicant had given his undertaking and accepted
the allowances.
4.1 That, the excess dues, if any, can be adjusted
against the amount of the retirement gratuity payable to
the retiree in terms of Rule 71 of CCS (Pension) Rules.
4.2. That, show case notice was given to the Applicant
vide dispatch No. 83 dated 13.01.2023 regarding the
recovery of overpayment of inadmissible TLA. Furthermore,
vide Memorandum dated 02.09.2020 while discontinuing
payment of Tough Location Allowance/TLA it had been
notified that in case higher/additional allowances have
been paid same should be recovered. The recovery of
Rs.1,59,900/- out of gratuity was made in compliance with
GOI orders as well as to submit the compliance report to
IAW (MHA).
Digitally signed by
NENGDEILHEN SINGSIT
NENGDEILHEN SINGSIT
O.A. No/196/2024

6

4.3. According to respondents retired as ACIO-I/Exe
which is Group-B post and his contentions that he is a Group
B is denied by them.
5. Sri A. Kundu, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the Honble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3500
of 2006 in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana &
Ors. - Versus- Jagdev Singh held that the situations cannot
be applied where the officer to whom the payment was
made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that
any payment found to have been made in excess would
be required to be refunded. According to respondents, the
recovery of inadmissible TLA was made to submit a
compliance to Para-5 of Audit report carried out by IAW
(MНА).
6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and
learned counsel for the respondents and perused the
pleadings.
7. It is observed that the matter pertains to Hardship
Allowance which was given wrongly to the applicant. As
Digitally signed by
NENGDEILHEN SINGSIT
NENGDEILHEN SINGSIT
O.A. No/196/2024

7

per the circular issued on 24.07.2019 from the Cremo
Itanagar (AD/E) to all BIPs of SIB Itanagar, All Branches at SIB
Hqrs, Itanagar, wherein it was stated that it has been
decided to grant Hardship Allowance (HAS) (as per
category ‘B’ & ‘C’ alongwith Tough Location Allowance
(TLA) & Ration Money Allowance (RMA) in lieu of Special
Duty Allowance (SDA) & Special Compensatory Allowance
(SCA) (old rate) to the officials of SIB Itanagar.” Also was
included a proforma for undertaking for willing officers with
that “Over payment, if any, towards these allowances
would be refunded as and when demanded.” Applicant
gave his undertaking and accepted the allowances
(Annexure R/6 of reply). Thereafter, Audit objection was
raised that he has been drawing HSA, RM alongwith TLA and
in terms of that, the excess amount was recovered from his
gratuity and the applicant has challenged that recovery in
this O.A.
8. Applicant had signed the undertaking (Annexure
R/6) with a sound mind and he had accepted the
Digitally signed by
NENGDEILHEN SINGSIT
NENGDEILHEN SINGSIT
O.A. No/196/2024

8

allowance knowing fully well that, over payment, if any,
towards those allowances are to be recovered as and
when demanded. He is bound by estoppel of law.
Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned
order of recovery.
9. Accordingly, the O.A is dismissed. No costs.




(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
MEMBER (J)


SS

Digitally signed by
NENGDEILHEN SINGSIT
NENGDEILHEN SINGSIT
O.A. No/196/2024