Facts
The applicant, a Group ‘C’ employee (Painter HS-I) in the Military Engineer Service (MES), retired on 31.01.2022
Source reference: p. 2-3Post-retirement, the respondents issued an order dated 17.04.2023, re-fixing his pay scales related to the 2nd and 3rd MACP and the 7th CPC
Source reference: p. 4, para 2(v)This re-fixation was based on audit objections by the Controller of Defence Accounts (CDA), Patna
Source reference: p. 5, para 3Consequently, the applicant’s leave encashment was reduced from ₹6,27,120 to ₹5,90,940, and his January 2022 salary was withheld pending the signing of an undertaking
Source reference: p. 4, para 2(vi); p. 5, para 3.2The applicant challenged the unilateral re-fixation and sought to restrain the respondents from recovering any excess salary, arguing there was no misrepresentation or fraud on his part
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the respondents are permitted to re-fix the pay scale of a Group ‘C’ employee after retirement when there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation
Source reference: p. 7, para 6(i)2. Whether the reduction in terminal benefits and withholding of salary constitutes an impermissible recovery under the law settled by the Apex Court
Source reference: p. 7-8, para 6(i)Law Applied
Rule 66 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, which empowers the government to revise pay or pension to correct clerical errors, provided such revision occurs within two years of authorization
Source reference: p. 9Legal principles established in State of Punjab Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [(2015) 4 SCC 334], which prohibits the recovery of wrongful excess payments from retired Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees
Source reference: p. 7-8DoPT OMs dated 02.03.2016 and 03.10.2022, which formalize the situations where recovery is impermissible
Source reference: p. 7-8Reasoning
The Tribunal distinguished between the "recovery of past excess payments" and the "regularization of pay for the purpose of calculating terminal benefits"
Source reference: p. 8-9While acknowledging the Rafiq Masih precedent, the Tribunal noted the respondents' contention that they were not recovering excess amounts already paid during service, but rather regularizing the pay scale under audit directions to ensure the correct final dues were paid
Source reference: p. 5-6, para 3.3Applying Rule 66 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, the Tribunal observed that the administrative department has the inherent right to revise pay and pension if a clerical or audit error is detected
Source reference: p. 9-10Since the re-fixation resulted in the "actual payment due" based on corrected scales and did not involve a clawback of previously disbursed salaries from terminal benefits, the Tribunal found the respondents' actions to be within the scope of the law
Source reference: p. 10, para 6Holding
The Tribunal held that the administrative authorities have the right to revise pay and regularize payments post-retirement to correct audit discrepancies under Rule 66 of the CCS (Pension) Rules
It concluded that because no recovery of past excess payments was being made from the applicant's terminal benefits—only a prospective correction of dues—there was no violation of the Rafiq Masih guidelines
Source reference: p. 8The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the respondents' decision; the OA was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made
Source reference: p. 10, para 7-8Original Court PDF
BALESHWAR PRASAD SAHUvsMilitary Engineer Services (MES)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in