Financial Upgradations Under ACP/MACP Cannot Be Retrospectively Withdrawn After Long Lapse of Time or Group C Recovery Effected.

The applicant was appointed as a Carpenter on 07.05.1990 in the Government Medical Stores Depot

Following previous litigation (OA 740/2001 and OA 506/2007), the Tribunal and Madras High Court directed the respondents to grant higher pay scales (Rs. 950-1500 and Rs. 1320-2040) based on 4th and 5th CPC recommendations

Consequently, the 4th respondent issued Depot Order No. 170 on 30.11.2011, granting the applicant revised 1st ACP in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000

However, in 2020, the respondents issued impugned orders revising these benefits downward, claiming the Carpenter post was "isolated" with no promotional hierarchy and that the 2011 revision was "erroneous"

The respondents sought to recover alleged excess payments made since 2011

1. Whether the post of Carpenter can be classified as an "isolated post" for the purpose of ACPS/MACPS, thereby justifying the downward revision of financial upgradations

2. Whether the respondents are legally permitted to recover excess payments from a Group ‘C’ employee after a lapse of eight years when the alleged error was not caused by the employee

DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 10.02.2000, which defines an "isolated post" as a stand-alone post having neither a feeder grade nor a promotional grade

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [AIR 2015 SC 696], which prohibits recovery from Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, and in cases where excess payment was made for a period exceeding five years before the recovery order

The Tribunal found that the respondents' contention of the Carpenter post being "isolated" was factually incorrect. It noted that the respondents had historically treated "Head Carpenter" as a promotional post for "Carpenter," evidenced by an appointment order in 1985 and a specific promotion of another employee (S. Duraiswamy) in 2013

Since a hierarchy existed, the grant of the Rs. 4000-6000 scale via the 2011 order was a "conscious decision" approved by the DGHS, not a random error

The Tribunal observed that the respondents could not "blow hot and cold" by granting promotions to some while labeling the post isolated for others

Regarding recovery, the court noted the applicant is a Group ‘C’ employee and the alleged excess payment spanned over eight years; thus, any recovery would be "iniquitous and harsh" under the Rafiq Masih guidelines

The Tribunal allowed the OA and quashed the impugned Depot Orders dated 28.05.2020, 09.06.2020, and 13.10.2020. The respondents were directed to disburse any withheld amounts to the applicant within two months. No order as to costs was made.