Correction of erroneous pay scale: Recovery of excess payment impermissible.

The applicant, Kanwal Deep Singh, was appointed as a Data Entry Operator (DEO) in July 1988 in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/-.

The Ministry of Finance accepted recommendations in June 2009 to grant a revised pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- to DEOs who were graduates at the time of initial appointment.

Subsequently, vide letter dated March 31, 2011, the applicant was placed in this revised pay scale.

Litigation arose concerning DEO Grade-A and Grade-B pay scales, culminating in the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in *Secretary, DoPT v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao* (Civil Appeals No. 10862-67 of 2014) on December 9, 2014, which held that DEO Grade-A and Grade-B could not be equated and the principle of "equal pay for equal work" was inapplicable.

Following this judgment, the CBDT withdrew its earlier letter dated March 31, 2011, as "infructuous" on May 1, 2019, and directed re-fixation of pay and seniority in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment.

The applicant received a show cause notice on September 14, 2022, regarding consequential benefits and re-fixation of pay.

He submitted replies contesting the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment to his case.

However, Respondent No. 4 issued an order dated July 12/21, 2023, re-fixing his pay from the date of initial appointment and ordering recovery of excess payments.

The applicant contended that he was appointed without a specific "Grade" and that being a graduate at the time of appointment meant he should be deemed to be in Grade 'B,' rendering the Supreme Court judgment inapplicable to him.

The respondents argued that the applicant was not a graduate at the time of recruitment, possessed only a higher secondary qualification, and was correctly placed in the lower scale.

The original OM granting the higher scale was applicable only to graduates at entry level, and the Supreme Court's ruling rendered that OM void *ab initio*.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to retain the revised pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- and consequential benefits despite the Supreme Court's judgment in *T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao's* case and the subsequent withdrawal of OM dated March 31, 2011.

2. Whether the recovery of excess payments from the applicant, pursuant to the re-fixation of pay, is permissible.

The court primarily applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *Secretary, DoPT v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao* (Civil Appeals No. 10862-67 of 2014), which held that Data Entry Operator Grade-A and Grade-B form distinct classes, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" does not apply between them, and any contrary decisions by Tribunals/High Courts are set aside.

Additionally, the court applied the precedent from *State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)* (Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014 decided on December 18, 2012) regarding the impermissibility of recovery of excess payments in certain circumstances.

The Tribunal analyzed that the applicant's claim to the higher pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- was solely based on OM dated March 31, 2011.

This OM was subsequently withdrawn by the CBDT on May 1, 2019, following the authoritative Supreme Court judgment in *T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao's* case on December 9, 2014.

The Supreme Court explicitly held that DEO Grade-A and Grade-B are distinct groups, and the principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply, setting aside any contradictory orders from lower courts.

The Tribunal noted that the very foundation of the applicant's claim had been declared infructuous.

Referencing its prior decision in *Sanjeev Paul Laroria v. Union of India & Ors.* (O.A. No. 060/217/2024), where a similar issue was decided against the applicant, the Tribunal reaffirmed that no DEO can claim a revised scale merely based on qualification or erroneous earlier grants after the *Mallikarjuna Rao* judgment.

Therefore, the applicants had no legal right to continue in the revised scale.

However, regarding the recovery of excess payments, the Tribunal found that such recovery was impermissible based on the law settled in *Rafiq Masih*.

Accordingly, the applications were disposed of, and no interference was called for regarding the re-fixation of pay.

However, the impugned orders dated July 12/21, 2023 (Annexure A-10 in OA No. 889/2023), November 6, 2023 (Annexure A-7 in OA No. 1282/2023), and February 20, 2024 (Annexure A-1 in O.A. No. 561/2024) were quashed to the extent of the recovery part, based on the principle established in *Rafiq Masih*.