Facts
The applicants were initially appointed as Data Entry Operators (DEOs) in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 and later placed in the revised scale of Rs. 1350-2200 via a letter dated March 31, 2011.
Source reference: p.5, para.2A litigation concerning DEO Grade-A and Grade-B pay scales culminated in the Supreme Court's decision in *Secretary, DoPT v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao* on December 9, 2014, which held that DEO Grade-A and Grade-B could not be equated and the equal pay for equal work principle was inapplicable.
Source reference: p.4, para.3Following this, the CBDT withdrew its earlier letter dated March 31, 2011, as infructuous on May 1, 2019, and directed re-fixation of pay.
Source reference: p.4, para.3The applicants received show cause notices in September 2022 regarding pay re-fixation.
Source reference: p.5, para.4Despite their replies arguing the Supreme Court judgment was inapplicable to their cases, respondent No. 4 issued impugned orders dated July 12/21, 2023, re-fixing their pay and ordering the recovery of excess payments.
Source reference: p.5, para.4The applicants contended that they were appointed in a scale that aligned with Grade 'B' and were graduates at the time of appointment, making the Supreme Court's judgment on Grade 'A' officers inapplicable to them.
Source reference: p.5, para.5The respondents contended that the applicants were not graduates at the time of recruitment, and that the letter dated March 31, 2011, applied only to graduate DEOs recruited against matriculation rules, becoming void *ab initio* after the Supreme Court's pronouncement.
Source reference: p.6, para.6They relied on the Supreme Court's holding that DEO Grade-A and Grade-B are distinct classes and that prior contrary decisions were set aside, and stated an administrative decision was made not to recover payments due to financial hardship.
Source reference: p.6, para.7; p.10, para.11Issues
Whether the applicants are 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.
Source reference: p.7, para.10Whether the recovery of excess pay and allowances from the applicants, pursuant to the re-fixation of their pay, is permissible.
Source reference: p.3, para.1(iii)Law Applied
The principle established by the Supreme Court 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 cannot be equated and the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not applicable between these distinct classes.
Source reference: p.4, para.3; p.7, para.12; p.9, para.9This judgment also explicitly stated that any contrary decisions by Tribunals or High Courts are set aside.
Source reference: p.9, para.9The precedent from *State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)*, Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014, decided on December 18, 2012, regarding situations where recovery of excess payments is impermissible.
Source reference: p.3, para.1(iii); p.10, para.14Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the applicants' claim for the revised pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- was solely based on OM dated March 31, 2011, which was subsequently withdrawn by the CBDT on May 1, 2019, following the authoritative Supreme Court judgment in *T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao's* case.
Source reference: p.7, para.11The Supreme Court explicitly ruled that DEO Grade-A and Grade-B are distinct classes, and the principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply, setting aside any contrary orders.
Source reference: p.7, para.12The Tribunal noted that the very foundation of the applicants' claims had been declared infructuous.
Source reference: p.7, para.11It also referred to its own prior decision in *Sanjeev Paul Laroria v. Union of India & Ors.* (O.A. No. 060/217/2024), where it was held that after the *T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao* judgment, no DEO could claim a revised scale merely based on qualification or erroneous prior grant.
Source reference: p.7, para.13; p.8, para.8Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants had no legal right to continue in the revised scale.
Source reference: p.10, para.14However, regarding recovery, the Tribunal acknowledged the precedent in *Rafiq Masih* and the administrative decision not to effect recovery from DEOs as stated in *Sanjeev Paul Laroia’s* case.
Source reference: p.10, para.14; p.10, para.11Holding
The Tribunal concluded that the applicants have no legal right to continue in the revised scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- after the withdrawal of OM dated March 31, 2011, and the implementation of the Supreme Court judgment in *T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao's* case.
Therefore, the impugned orders re-fixing the pay were upheld.
Source reference: no citationHowever, the Tribunal held that the action of the respondents in effecting recovery of excess paid amounts was impermissible, citing the law settled in *Rafiq Masih's* case.
Source reference: p.10, para.14Accordingly, the impugned orders dated July 12/21, 2023, November 6, 2023, and February 20, 2024, were quashed to the extent of the recovery part.
Source reference: p.10, para.14All three Original Applications were disposed of with no order as to costs.
Source reference: p.10, para.15Original Court PDF
O.A. No. 889/2023 and 02 connected matters, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in