Recovery from Group C employees without misrepresentation or fraud is impermissible.

The applicant, Ram Lachhan, was engaged as Up-Dak-Paal on October 4, 1990, and subsequently joined services on October 23, 1990, at Post Office Chirai Gaon, District Varanasi

On March 24, 2011, the post of GDSMD was abolished from Chirai Gaon, leading to the applicant's reversion to EDSPM at Chirai Gaon at the same pay scale

The applicant was later adjusted to the post of GDS Packer and GDSMC

He asserted that his post was downgraded, and his pay was adjusted to TRCA slab 3635-65-5585, while his previous TRCA was 4575-85-7125

He claimed that his pay was refixed without an opportunity for hearing, and an amount of Rs. 23,123/- (later stated as Rs. 94,816/-) was recovered from his salary at a rate of Rs. 1000/- per month, citing alleged overpayment

The applicant challenged the orders dated June 26, 2014, and May 28, 2014, passed by respondent No. 3 and No. 4, respectively, which rejected his representation and initiated recovery

The respondents contended that the pay fixation was incorrect, leading to overpayment, and thus his pay was refixed, and recovery was initiated in accordance with rules

Whether the impugned orders dated June 26, 2014, and May 28, 2014, are illegal and should be quashed

Whether the respondents' authorities should be directed to pay the applicant his regular salary as usual, along with arrears and consequential benefits

Whether the respondents' authorities should be directed to refund the already recovered amount from the applicant’s salary with consequential benefits and 18% interest

Whether the refixation of the applicant's pay without a show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was legally permissible

Whether recovery of alleged overpayment from a Group C employee, without proof of misrepresentation or fraud, is permissible

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing and issuing a show cause notice before passing orders that entail civil consequences, such as pay refixation or recovery

It relied on the settled legal position that recovery of overpayment is impermissible from Group C employees unless there is fraud or misrepresentation

The court also cited the Supreme Court's observations in *Rafiq Masih (supra)*, which outlines situations where recoveries by employers would be impermissible, including recovery from Class-III and Class-IV (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’) service employees, and instances where no fraud or misrepresentation is proven

The Tribunal analyzed the facts and found that the applicant, a Group C employee, had neither misrepresented nor committed any fraud in receiving the alleged overpayment

It noted that the recovery was initiated without issuing a show cause notice or providing an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, which is a violation of natural justice principles and considered bad in the eyes of law

Citing *Rafiq Masih (supra)*, the Tribunal underscored that recovery from Group C employees is impermissible when the benefit of alleged overpayment was granted by the respondents themselves, and no fraud or misrepresentation was committed by the employee

The Tribunal also found that the refixation of salary without following the prescribed procedure, including issuing a show cause notice and affording an opportunity of hearing, was wrong and unsustainable as it entailed civil consequences

Despite the respondents' claim of pay protection, their failure to provide supporting documents and adhere to due process rendered the refixation flawed

It quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated June 26, 2014, and May 28, 2014

The court directed the respondents to restore the applicant's original pay as drawn prior to the refixation order, with this exercise to be completed within three months

It further directed that if respondents wish to refix the pay, they must follow the requisite procedure, including issuing a show cause notice and providing an ample opportunity of hearing to the applicant

Regarding the recovery, the Tribunal directed the respondents to stop any further recovery and to refund the entire amount already recovered from the applicant within three months, failing which the payment would attract interest at the GPF rate