Pay-recovery claims must be reconsidered under settled law where employees made no misrepresentation or fraud.

The applicants, employees of Prasar Bharati working under the administrative control of the Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar, challenged communications/order(s) proposing reduction of their pay and recovery of alleged excess payments.

Applicants 1 to 4 were Stenographers, while applicant 5 was a Manager-cum-Accountant in the Departmental Canteen.

Following implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the pre-revised pay scales of Rs. 4,500–7,000 and Rs. 5,000–8,000 were stated to have been merged/upgraded to Rs. 6,500–10,500, with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200.

The applicants contended that this benefit was extended to Prasar Bharati employees through an order dated 3 October 2012.

Their pay was consequently refixed from 1 January 2006, and arrears were released during 2013–14.

The proceedings initially commenced before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court as SWP No. 1069/2018 and were subsequently transferred to the Tribunal as T.A. No. 698/2021.

The High Court had directed maintenance of status quo during the pendency of the matter.

Applicant 5 later withdrew from the proceedings, and the withdrawal was allowed on 20 July 2020.

Whether the applicants’ pay could be reduced and alleged excess payments recovered after their pay had been refixed under the revised Sixth Pay Commission structure and arrears had been released?

Whether recovery could be effected in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or connivance attributable to the applicants, having regard to the principles laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, and Employees District Judge Cuttack v. State of Orissa?

Whether the applicants were similarly situated to the employees involved in the comparable Original Applications cited before the Tribunal, thereby warranting similar treatment?

The Tribunal relied on the principle that recovery of excess payments from employees may be impermissible where the excess payment was not caused by fraud, misrepresentation, or connivance on the employee’s part, particularly in circumstances covered by the safeguards recognised in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher).

It also relied on Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, AIR 2022 SC 2153, and Employees District Judge Cuttack v. State of Orissa, as authorities concerning the impermissibility of recovery of excess salary payments in appropriate cases absent culpable conduct by the employee.

The Tribunal further considered decisions of the CAT Principal Bench, Chandigarh Bench, and Ernakulam Bench involving allegedly similar pay-fixation and recovery issues.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ pay had been revised and arrears released pursuant to the respondents’ own pay-fixation decision.

The applicants relied on the Supreme Court’s restriction on recovery where the employee had not obtained the payment through fraud or misrepresentation.

When the respondents’ counsel was specifically questioned regarding fraud, connivance, or misrepresentation attributable to the applicants, no clear finding of such conduct was placed before the Tribunal; the respondents merely referred to their reply.

However, instead of finally determining entitlement to the upgraded pay scale or conclusively adjudicating the legality of recovery, the Tribunal directed the respondents to examine the applicants’ claim in light of the cited precedents and comparable Tribunal decisions, subject to the applicants being similarly circumstanced.

It disposed of T.A. No. 698/2021, along with any connected miscellaneous applications, by directing the respondents to treat the T.A. as a representation and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks, in accordance with law, if the applicants were similarly situated to the employees in the comparable Original Applications cited before the Tribunal.