Recovery pursuant to proposed pay refixation is barred pending reasoned disposal of the employee’s representation.

The applicant, a Research Officer (Chemistry) in the Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine (CCRUM), was initially appointed as a Research Assistant (Chemistry) against a regular sanctioned post with effect from 6 August 1993, pursuant to an open advertisement and selection by a competent Selection Committee.

Although initially appointed on an ad hoc basis, his services were subsequently regularised with effect from 18 August 1999.

He was promoted as Research Officer (Chemistry) with effect from 28 October 2015.

The respondents issued orders dated 19 September 2025, 21 November 2025, 10 August 2026 and 11 August 2026, allegedly revising the date of grant of financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP Scheme by excluding the applicant’s ad hoc service.

The respondents also proposed recovery of approximately ₹28,45,927 towards alleged excess payment for the period from 6 August 2005 to 31 July 2026.

He had submitted a representation dated 24 August 2026 against the proposed recovery, but it had not been decided.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 24 August 2026 against the proposed recovery and refixation/withdrawal of ACP benefits by a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether recovery could be effected from the applicant’s pay before the representation was considered and the decision communicated to him.

Whether the applicant’s ad hoc service was required to be counted for determining eligibility for financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP Scheme.

The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers the Tribunal to adjudicate service-related grievances.

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness, particularly the requirement that an employee’s representation against an adverse service and recovery decision be considered through a reasoned and speaking order before coercive recovery is made.

The Tribunal also noted the Government circular concerning career advancement in CCRUM, which stated that where employees had remained on ad hoc service for a considerable period before regularisation, their regular and ad hoc service could be taken into account for eligibility conditions wherever necessary, without disturbing seniority.

The Tribunal referred to its earlier decisions in Dr. Mustehasan & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., O.A. No. 1043/2026, and Negi v. Union of India & Anr., O.A. No. 3328/2026, but did not finally determine the applicant’s substantive entitlement.

The Tribunal recognised that the applicant had raised substantive grievances concerning exclusion of his ad hoc service from the calculation of ACP/MACP benefits and the proposed recovery of ₹28,45,927.

However, since the respondents had not yet passed a final recovery order and the applicant’s representation dated 24 August 2026 remained pending, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to adopt a limited procedural course rather than decide the merits at the admission stage.

Applying the requirement of administrative fairness, it directed the respondents to consider the representation and issue a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law.

To prevent possible prejudice while the representation remained undecided, the Tribunal restrained the respondents from making any recovery from the applicant’s pay until the representation was decided and the order communicated to him.

The respondents were directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 24 August 2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

Until the representation was decided and the decision communicated to the applicant, the respondents were restrained from effecting any recovery from his pay pursuant to the proposed recovery.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.