Recovery of alleged excess pay is barred pending a reasoned decision on the employee’s representation.

The applicant, a Senior Accountant in the Geological Survey of India, challenged Office Order No. PAO/GSI/Hyd/Revised.PF/2026-27/290 dated 13.08.2026, by which the respondents allegedly revised and refixed his pay with effect from 01.04.2016 and proposed recovery of approximately ₹9,19,000 towards alleged excess payment.

He contended that his pay had earlier been correctly fixed upon promotion and under the Seventh Central Pay Commission, and that he had subsequently been granted the second MACP benefit with effect from 01.04.2026.

The applicant alleged that the downward refixation and recovery were ordered without a show-cause notice or compliance with due procedure, and that the proposed recovery related to a period exceeding five years.

The respondents accepted notice and sought time to obtain instructions.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s representation dated 19.08.2026 was pending consideration by the competent authority.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicant’s pending representation against the pay refixation and proposed recovery by a reasoned and speaking order after granting him an opportunity of hearing.

2. Whether recovery from the applicant’s pay and allowances should be stayed until disposal of his representation, without adjudicating the merits of the pay-fixation dispute.

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness, requiring that an adverse decision affecting an employee’s pay and financial liability be preceded by an opportunity of hearing and followed by a reasoned and speaking order.

It further applied the interim-protection principle that, where an employee’s representation against a proposed recovery is pending and the challenge raises a prima facie grievance concerning procedural fairness and recovery of alleged excess payment, recovery should not be effected to the employee’s detriment until the representation is decided.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was finally adjudicated upon, as the Tribunal expressly refrained from entering into the merits of the dispute.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the respondents’ pay refixation from 01.04.2016 or the proposed recovery of approximately ₹9,19,000 was legally valid.

Instead, it focused on the pending representation and the need for procedural fairness.

Since the applicant alleged absence of notice and hearing, and the representation was awaiting consideration, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days of receipt of its order, after granting the applicant an opportunity of hearing.

Pending that decision, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to protect the applicant from financial prejudice by prohibiting recovery from his pay and allowances.

The directions were expressly issued without prejudice to the parties’ rights and without examination of the merits.

The respondents were directed to decide the applicant’s representation dated 19.08.2026 through a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days, after allowing him to submit a further detailed representation with supporting case law and granting him an opportunity of hearing.

Until disposal of the representation, no recovery was to be effected from the applicant’s pay and allowances to his detriment.

The Tribunal clarified that the order was without prejudice to the applicant’s rights and did not decide the merits of the pay refixation, MACP entitlement, or legality of the proposed recovery.

No order as to costs was made.