Recovery of excess pay from Class-III/IV employees after five years is impermissible absent fraud.

The applicant was appointed as a Cleaner in 1984

promoted to the post of Driver on 13.10.1999 in the pay scale of ₹3050-4590

On 23.07.2001, the department placed the applicant in the higher pay scale of ₹4000-6000

After 14 years, the respondents issued Order No. 170-E of 2015 (dated 30.12.2015), asserting that the 2001 placement violated SRO-28 of 1996 and SRO-18 of 1998, which required five years of service in the previous scale

The impugned order shifted the effective date of the higher scale to 01.11.2004 and directed recovery of the excess salary

The applicant, who retired on 31.01.2020, challenged the order via a writ petition, which was subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal

1. Whether the recovery of excess salary after a lapse of 14 years, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation by the employee, is legally permissible?

2. Whether the impugned order directing recovery and revision of pay scale was sustainable given the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice?

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles established by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015), which prohibited recovery from Class III/IV employees, retired employees, or when excess payment was made for a period exceeding five years before the recovery order

It further relied on Union of India v. Narender Singh (2008) and Union of India v. P.N. Natrajan (2010), affirming that an opportunity of hearing is mandatory before taking action that adversely affects an employee's civil rights

the Tribunal noted the "doctrine of sit back" from Rabindra Nath v. Union of India (1970), suggesting settled service positions should not be disturbed after long periods

recent precedents allowing prospective re-fixation while barring retrospective recovery

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s placement in the higher pay scale in 2001 was a unilateral act of the department, with no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant

The impugned recovery order was issued after an inordinate delay of 14 years, directly violating the five-year threshold established in Rafiq Masih

the applicant’s status as a Class III/IV employee and his subsequent retirement brought him within the protective ambit of the situations where recovery is deemed iniquitous and arbitrary

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed to provide a show-cause notice or an opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principle of audi alteram partem

While acknowledging the department's right to rectify erroneous pay fixations, the Tribunal distinguished between the right to correct records prospectively and the impermissibility of recovering past payments under these specific circumstances

It set aside Order No. 170-E of 2015 insofar as it directed recovery from the applicant

The respondents were directed to refrain from effecting recovery and to refund any amount already recovered within eight weeks

the Tribunal clarified that the respondents remain competent to re-fix the applicant's pay and pension prospectively in accordance with applicable rules, provided no recovery of past excess payments is sought

The Transfer Application was disposed of with no order as to costs