Revised pay scale withdrawal upheld; recovery of excess payment impermissible.

The applicant, Kanwal Deep Singh, was appointed as a Data Entry Operator (DEO) in July 1988 in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/-.

On June 15, 2009, the Ministry of Finance accepted recommendations to grant a revised pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- to DEOs who were graduates at the time of initial appointment.

Subsequently, by a letter dated March 31, 2011, the applicant was placed in this revised pay scale.

Litigation arose concerning DEO Grade-A and Grade-B pay scales, which the Supreme Court decided in *Secretary, DoPT v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao* (Civil Appeals No. 10862-67 of 2014) on December 9, 2014, holding that DEO Grade-A and Grade-B could not be equated and the principle of "equal pay for equal work" was inapplicable.

Following this judgment, the CBDT issued a clarification on May 1, 2019, withdrawing its March 31, 2011 letter as infructuous and directing re-fixation of pay and seniority in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment.

Consequently, respondent No. 3 issued directions on September 24, 2020, to subordinate officers for implementation.

The applicant received a show cause notice on September 14, 2022, regarding re-fixation of pay.

Despite the applicant's replies contending the Supreme Court judgment was inapplicable to his case, respondent No. 4 passed an impugned order dated July 12/21, 2023, re-fixing his pay from the date of initial appointment and ordering recovery of excess payment.

The applicant contended he was appointed without grade designation and, as a graduate, should be deemed in Grade 'B', making the *Mallikarjuna Rao* judgment inapplicable to him.

The respondents argued the applicant was not a graduate at initial recruitment and the March 31, 2011 letter was applicable only to graduates, thus becoming void *ab initio* after the Supreme Court's judgment.

Whether the applicant is entitled to retain the revised pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- and consequential benefits despite the Supreme Court's judgment in *T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao’s case* and the subsequent withdrawal of OM dated March 31, 2011 by the CBDT.

Whether the recovery of excess pay and allowances from the applicant, pursuant to the re-fixation of pay, is permissible.

The court primarily applied the principle established in *Secretary, DoPT v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao* (Civil Appeals No. 10862-67 of 2014, decided on December 9, 2014), which held that Data Entry Operators Grade-A and Grade-B form distinct classes, and the principle of "equal pay for equal work" does not apply to equate them, irrespective of qualifications or length of service, thereby setting aside any contrary decisions of Tribunals/High Courts.

It further considered the bar on recovery of excess payments in certain circumstances, as established by the Supreme Court in *State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)* (Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014, decided on December 18, 2012).

The court found that the applicant's claim to the revised pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- was solely based on the OM dated March 31, 2011, which was subsequently withdrawn by the CBDT on May 1, 2019, following the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncement in *T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao’s case*.

The Supreme Court explicitly held that DEO Grade-A and Grade-B constitute distinct classes, precluding the application of "equal pay for equal work" and setting aside all prior contrary orders from Tribunals and High Courts.

The Tribunal further noted that this issue had been decided against similar applicants in *Sanjeev Paul Laroria v. Union of India & Ors.* (O.A. No. 060/217/2024), where it was held that after the *Mallikarjuna Rao's case*, no DEO could claim the revised scale based on qualification or erroneous earlier grant.

The court thus concluded that with the withdrawal of the foundational OM, the applicant could not legally insist on the continuation of benefits derived from it, as the Supreme Court's judgment was *in rem* and applicable to the entire cadre.

However, regarding the recovery part, the court recognized the administrative decision by the respondents not to effect recovery from DEOs as a result of pay re-fixation, consistent with the principles established in *Rafiq Masih’s case*.

Therefore, the core claim for retaining the higher pay scale was dismissed.

However, concerning the recovery of excess payments, the court held that such recovery is impermissible in light of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in *Rafiq Masih’s case*.

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated July 12/21, 2023 (Annexure A-10 in OA No. 889/2023), November 6, 2023 (Annexure A-7 in OA No. 1282/2023), and February 20, 2024 (Annexure A-1 in O.A. No. 561/2024) were quashed to the extent of the recovery part.

All three Original Applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.