Recovery of irregular SDA payments is permissible from Group B employees who furnished refund undertakings.

The applicants, employees of Prasar Bharati/Doordarshan Kendra, Guwahati, challenged the speaking order-cum-recovery order dated 21.08.2024, whereby recovery of Special Duty Allowance (“SDA”) arrears paid to them for the period May 1997 to August 2008 was directed.

The SDA arrears had been paid on 07.01.2016 after departmental scrutiny and verification. At the time of payment, the applicants executed undertakings agreeing to refund the amount if it was subsequently found inadmissible or irregular.

Earlier, recovery proceedings had been challenged in O.A. No. 156/2018. The Tribunal directed reconsideration of recovery in the case of Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ employees, while protecting Group ‘C’ employees in accordance with the applicable law.

The Gauhati High Court dismissed the respondents’ writ petition, and the Supreme Court dismissed the respondents’ Special Leave Petition, observing that recovery without show-cause notices entailed civil consequences.

Thereafter, show-cause notices dated 30.12.2019 were issued to the applicants; no replies were submitted. The respondents subsequently issued the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 directing recovery.

1. Whether the applicants, being treated as Group ‘B’ employees when the SDA arrears were paid, were entitled to protection against recovery under the principles in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and DoPT O.M. dated 02.03.2016.

2. Whether the respondents followed the principles of natural justice and due process before directing recovery of the SDA arrears.

3. Whether the undertakings furnished by the applicants authorised recovery of the allegedly inadmissible SDA payments under High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh.

The Tribunal applied the principle that excess or irregular payments may generally be recovered where the employee was not legally entitled to them, as recognised in Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand.

The protective principles in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and DoPT O.M. No. 18/03/2015-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 02.03.2016 restrict recovery in specified circumstances, particularly from lower-level employees and where recovery would be inequitable; however, that protection is not automatically available to Group ‘B’ employees.

The Tribunal further relied on High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, which holds that an employee who furnished an undertaking to refund an excess or inadmissible payment cannot subsequently avoid recovery on the basis of Rafiq Masih.

The principles of natural justice require notice and an opportunity to respond before recovery is ordered, particularly because recovery entails civil consequences; the Tribunal found that this requirement had been met through the show-cause notices issued on 30.12.2019.

The Tribunal held that the applicants were similarly situated to the employees in O.A. No. 10/2024, where recovery of SDA from Group ‘B’ employees had been upheld.

Unlike the protected category of Group ‘C’ employees, the applicants were treated as Group ‘B’ employees when the SDA arrears were disbursed. Consequently, they could not claim the benefit of the broader recovery protection under Rafiq Masih or the DoPT O.M.

The applicants had also executed specific undertakings agreeing to refund the SDA if it was later found inadmissible. Applying Jagdev Singh, the Tribunal held that the undertakings bound the applicants.

Further, the respondents had issued show-cause notices pursuant to the High Court’s directions, but the applicants did not submit replies. Thus, the recovery order was not vitiated by denial of natural justice.

It held that the applicants, being Group ‘B’ employees who had furnished refund undertakings and failed to respond to the show-cause notices, were not entitled to immunity from recovery under Rafiq Masih or the DoPT O.M. The recovery of the SDA arrears was therefore upheld.

No order as to costs was made.