Erroneous pay upgradation cannot be recovered after 30 years without notice, especially if based on a government order.

The applicant, Chhatar Das Sant, was appointed as a Meter Reader on May 7, 1984, in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400.

In 1983, the President sanctioned the upgradation of posts from Skilled grade/Highly Skilled Grade-II to Highly Skilled Grade-II/I for certain jobs, including that of a Meter Reader, to the pay scale of Rs. 330-480.

Consequently, the applicant was upgraded to the pay scale of Rs. 330-480 via an order dated February 25, 1987 (Annexure-A/3).

His pay was subsequently revised/fixed under Central Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules in 1986, 1996, and he received benefits under ACP/MACP Schemes.

However, upon scrutiny during the grant of 3rd MACP, an order dated October 31, 2015 (Annexure-A/1A) was passed, revoking his upgradation and revised pay scales from 1986 till date, asserting that the upgradation was wrongly granted as it was applicable to "industrial workers" and not to Meter Readers, and was done without audit approval.

The applicant preferred this OA to quash the order dated October 31, 2015, and seek restoration of his pay.

Whether the revocation of the applicant's upgradation to the pay scale of Rs. 330-480 and the subsequent revision of his pay after more than 30 years, without prior notice and hearing, was legally permissible.

Whether the fitment orders for industrial workers, reiterated in a Ministry of Defence letter dated May 11, 1983, and clarified by office order No. 49 dated June 2, 1984, were applicable to the post of Meter Reader.

Whether the withdrawal of the applicant's pay fixation on the ground of lack of audit approval was justified after over 30 years and multiple pay revisions.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle that an action to withdraw a benefit granted over 30 years ago, especially when based on a clear government order, cannot be allowed if it contradicts the consistent view taken by the government itself.

It also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)*, AIR 2015 SC 696, which holds that recovery in such matters is not permissible.

The Tribunal further considered Part-I office order No. 49 dated June 2, 1984, issued by the Controller of Defence Accounts S.C. Pune-I, which clarified the applicability of industrial pay scales and benefits to certain jobs, including those deemed non-industrial under Recruitment Rules but industrial in nature.

The court analyzed that the respondents' contention that the fitment orders were not applicable to Meter Readers was contrary to their own Part-I office order No. 49 dated June 2, 1984.

This order explicitly clarified that certain jobs, though non-industrial under Recruitment Rules, would carry industrial pay scales if industrial in nature, a clarification beneficial to the applicant.

The court noted that the government's stance, as per the 1984 clarification, had not been formally withdrawn, thus rendering the respondents' contrary view in 2015 untenable.

Regarding the lack of audit approval, the court found it unreasonable to withdraw a benefit granted since October 15, 1984, (effective date of upgradation) after numerous subsequent pay revisions (1986, 1996, 2008) and the grant of ACP/MACP benefits.

The court emphasized that withdrawing such a long-standing benefit without offering a hearing opportunity to the applicant was impermissible.

Furthermore, the court invoked the Supreme Court's ruling in *Rafiq Masih* to deem recovery of amounts under such circumstances as not permissible.

The order dated October 31, 2015 (Annexure-A/1A) is quashed and set aside.

The respondents are directed not to revise the pay of the applicant fixed vide order dated February 25, 1987 (Annexure-A/3) with consequential revision.

No order as to costs.