Erroneously granted ACP benefits may be withdrawn when inconsistent with the governing scheme.

Girraj Singh was appointed as a Durwan in 1984 and subsequently moved through various industrial categories, eventually entering the Highly Skilled category in 2005.

He sought the second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme with effect from 13 January 2008.

The respondents initially granted him the second ACP in Grade Pay ₹4,200, but later withdrew that benefit, allowed the second ACP in Grade Pay ₹2,800, and ordered recovery of ₹21,137.

The amount was recovered in instalments.

After Girraj Singh died during the proceedings, his legal representatives were substituted as applicants.

The applicants challenged the withdrawal, revised ACP benefit, and recovery.

1. Whether Girraj Singh was entitled to the second ACP in Grade Pay ₹4,200 with effect from 13 January 2008, or whether the respondents could restrict it to Grade Pay ₹2,800.

2. Whether the respondents were justified in withdrawing the Grade Pay ₹4,200 benefit and recovering ₹21,137 paid on that basis.

The Tribunal considered the ACP Scheme, 1999, which governed financial upgradations by reference to the employee’s service progression and the scheme’s eligibility conditions, as well as the applicable Ministry of Defence and Ordnance Factory Board clarifications.

The respondents relied particularly on the Ordnance Factory Board clarification dated 5 December 2013, which provided that, following cadre restructuring, the first and second ACPs for employees completing 12 or 24 years of service during the relevant period were admissible in Grade Pays ₹2,400 and ₹2,800, respectively.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that an earlier erroneous pay fixation does not, by itself, create an indefeasible right to continue receiving a benefit contrary to the governing scheme.

No judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ position that the applicant’s movements through the industrial categories had to be assessed under the ACP Scheme and that entitlement could not be determined solely by counting years of service.

It relied on the 5 December 2013 clarification and the post-restructuring hierarchy to conclude that the applicant had not established a right to the second ACP in Grade Pay ₹4,200; the respondents were therefore entitled to correct the earlier grant and restrict the benefit to Grade Pay ₹2,800.

On recovery, the Tribunal found that the higher-grade benefit had been granted mistakenly, had been received for only approximately three to four months, and was corrected during the applicant’s service.

It held that the absence of a separate hearing did not, in the circumstances, automatically invalidate the correction and recovery.

It dismissed the Original Application, made no order as to costs, and disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications.