Dismissed¶12

Union of India & Anr. v. Sanjay Kumar

Recovery of excess pay – erroneous pay fixation

Delhi HC15 Jul 2025W.P.(C)/9911/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC (Navin Chawla & Renu Bhatnagar, JJ., 15.07.2025, W.P.(C) 9911/2025) dismisses Union of India's writ petition against the CAT order restraining recovery of Rs. 4,27,793/- excess pay from a retiring Northern Railways employee whose Grade Pay was wrongly fixed in 2009; Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 five-year criterion applied; Thomas Daniel (2022 SCC OnLine SC 536) referred.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was dismissed and the pending application disposed of as infructuous. ¶12

Union of India & Anr. Vs Sanjay Kumar — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition was dismissed and the pending application disposed of as infructuous.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Tribunal erred in interfering with (setting aside) the recovery of excess pay from the respondent pursuant to the Orders dated 16.08.2023 and 29/31.08.2023, such that the Tribunal's Order dated 11.03.2025 deserved to be set aside. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners (including that the respondent's own representation obviated a show cause notice and that a speaking order preceded the recovery) were considered and found to have no merit.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

It was not the petitioners' case that the respondent misrepresented or caused the wrong fixation of his pay in 2009; the recovery was sought only after the expiry of almost 14 years, just before his retirement, once the wrong fixation was realised.

¶10

Key takeaways

Applying Rafiq Masih (supra), recovery sought just before the respondent's retirement and after 14 years of the alleged wrongful fixation would cause grave prejudice to the respondent, who was not to blame in the entire episode.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Recovery of excess pay — erroneous pay fixation — retiring railway employee. Delhi High Court (Navin Chawla & Renu Bhatnagar, JJ., oral, 15.07.2025) dismissed W.P.(C) 9911/2025 by which the Union of India challenged the CAT, Principal Bench Order dated 11.03.2025 (OA 2634/2023, Sanjay Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.) that had quashed the re-fixation order dated 16.08.2023 and the recovery notice dated 29/31.08.2023 seeking Rs. 4,27,793/- from a Northern Railways employee whose Grade Pay was erroneously fixed at Rs. 4,800/- on his 06.07.2009 promotion as Inspector. The court noted there was no allegation of misrepresentation by the employee and that the recovery was sought after almost 14 years, just before his superannuation on 31.08.2023; applying Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 (recovery interdicted where sought after more than 5 years), it held the recovery would cause grave prejudice to an employee not to blame. Petition dismissed; pending application disposed of as infructuous; Thomas Daniel (2022 SCC OnLine SC 536) had been relied on by the Tribunal and is referred to in the judgment.

¶1

$~121

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 15.07.2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 9911/2025 & CM APPL. 41314/2025 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr.Satya Ranjan Swain, SPC, Mr.Kautilya Birat, Mr.Vikash Kumar, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

SANJAY KUMAR .....Respondent

¶8

Through: Nemo

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

¶11

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in OA 2634/2023 titled Sanjay Kumar v. Union of India & Anr. , allowing the said OA filed by the respondent herein with the following directions:

¶13

“5. We further observe that the re-fixation was carried out through the impugned order dated 16.08.2023, which is more than twelve years after the actual fixation and in the month of retirement.

¶14

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 16.08.2023. The respondents are directed to restore the earlier

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

Digitally Signed WP(C) 9911/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 7.07.2025 19:50:17

¶18

pay fixation order and release the gratuity so withheld within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. The applicant shall be entitled for interest at the GPF rate on the delayed payments.”

¶19

To give a brief background of the facts in which the present petition arises, the respondent was appointed to the post of Senior Clerk in the commercial department of the Northern Railways in the pay scale of Rs. 2,800/-. Thereafter, the respondent joined the accounts department as a Junior Account Assistant in the Grade Pay of Rs.2,800/-. He was promoted to the post of Account Assistant in the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- in the Northern Railways, vide Order dated 03.10.1992. In the year 2008, he was granted the benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression (in short, ‘MACP’) Scheme in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-.

¶20

At the time of grant of MACP, the respondent had submitted an undertaking dated 10.09.2008, stating that if any excess payment was found to have been made as a result of incorrect fixation of pay or any excess payment detected in the light of discrepancies noticed subsequently, it will be refunded by him to the Government either by adjustment against future payments due to him or otherwise.

¶21

On 06.07.2009, the respondent was promoted as Inspector in the Store Accounts Department, however, erroneously the Accounts Department granted him another benefit by fixing his Grade Pay as Rs.4800/-, by granting him 3% of his basic pay plus difference of the Grade Pay.

¶22

The respondent was due for superannuation on 31.08.2023. At

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

Digitally Signed WP(C) 9911/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 7.07.2025 19:50:17

¶26

the time of finalizing the account, he became aware that the petitioners were intending to recover the excess amount paid to him and therefore, he submitted a representation dated 04.08.2023 to the petitioners stating that the recovery just before his superannuation would cause grave prejudice to him.

¶27

The representation of the respondent, however, was rejected by the petitioners vide Order dated 16.08.2023, and by an Order dated 29/31.08.2023, a recovery of Rs.4,27,793/- was sought to be made from the respondent.

¶28

Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed the above OA. The learned Tribunal, by placing reliance on the Judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334, and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala & Ors. , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536, has set aside the impugned recovery notice dated 29/31.08.2023. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent has admitted that his pay has been wrongly fixed on his promotion to the post of Inspector. The respondent himself made a representation dated 04.08.2023 against the proposed recovery, and therefore, cannot claim that a Show Cause Notice should have been first issued to him in that regard. He further submits that the representation of the respondent had been duly considered and rejected vide a speaking Order dated 16.08.2023, and the recovery was thereafter sought to be made by the Order dated 29/31.08.2023. He submits that therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in interfering with the Impugned recovery, and the Impugned Order of the learned

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

Digitally Signed WP(C) 9911/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 7.07.2025 19:50:17

¶32

Tribunal deserves to be set aside.

¶33

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, find no merit in the same. 10. At the outset, we would note that it is not the case of the petitioners that the respondent, in any manner, misrepresented or caused wrong fixation of his pay in the year 2009. It is only after the expiry of almost 14 years and just before the retirement of the respondent, that the petitioners sought to make the recovery, realizing that the pay of the respondent has been wrongly fixed.

¶34

In Rafiq Masih (supra), the Supreme Court stated that one of the circumstances in which the recovery of excess amount mistakenly being paid by the employer can be interdicted is where the recovery is sought to be made after a period of more than 5 years. In the present case, the recovery sought to be made by the petitioner was just before the retirement of the respondent and after 14 years of the alleged wrongful fixation of the pay of the respondent. In our opinion, this would cause grave prejudice to the respondent who was not to blame in the entire episode.

¶35

Accordingly, we find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed. Pending application is also disposed of being infructuous.

¶36

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶37

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶38

JULY 15, 2025/Arya/ VS

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Page 4 of 4

¶41

Digitally Signed WP(C) 9911/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 7.07.2025 19:50:17

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 11.03.2025 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in OA 2634/2023 (Sanjay Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.), allowing the respondent's OA: it quashed the re-fixation/recovery order dated 16.08.2023, directed restoration of the earlier pay fixation order, release of the withheld gratuity within three months, and interest at the GPF rate on delayed payments.¶1
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi · 11.03.2025
Prior proceeding
Respondent appointed as Senior Clerk in the commercial department of the Northern Railways in pay scale Rs. 2,800/-; joined the accounts department as Junior Account Assistant (Grade Pay Rs. 2,800/-); promoted to Account Assistant (Grade Pay Rs. 4,200/-) vide Order dated 03.10.1992; granted MACP benefit in Grade Pay Rs. 4,600/- in 2008.¶2
Prior proceeding
At the time of grant of MACP, respondent submitted an undertaking dated 10.09.2008 to refund any excess payment found to result from incorrect fixation of pay.¶3
Prior proceeding
On 06.07.2009 respondent promoted as Inspector in the Store Accounts Department; the Accounts Department erroneously fixed his Grade Pay at Rs. 4,800/-, granting 3% of basic pay plus the Grade Pay difference.¶4
Prior proceeding
Respondent due to superannuate on 31.08.2023; on learning of the intended recovery, he made a representation dated 04.08.2023 pleading grave prejudice if recovery were made just before superannuation.¶5
Prior proceeding
Representation rejected vide Order dated 16.08.2023; recovery of Rs. 4,27,793/- sought from the respondent by Order dated 29/31.08.2023.¶6
Prior proceeding
Tribunal observed that the re-fixation through the order dated 16.08.2023 came more than twelve years after the actual fixation and in the month of retirement; it quashed that order, directed restoration of the earlier pay fixation, release of withheld gratuity within three months, and GPF-rate interest on delayed payments.¶1
Prior proceeding
Tribunal, placing reliance on Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel (2022 SCC OnLine SC 536), set aside the impugned recovery notice dated 29/31.08.2023.¶7

Union of India & Anr. v. Sanjay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Anr. v. Sanjay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Jat Vs Commissioner of Customs

Ushodaya Enterprizes Private Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

August Attorneys LLP Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sh. Vineet Airy & Anr. Vs Delhi Cantonment Board

Razia Begum Vs Commissioner of Customs

Suresh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Union of India & Ors. Vs Hfo Ratnakar Mahala Retd

Gujarat Gas Limited Vs Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board & Anr.

Rajeev Rakshit Vs Chandna Singh Rakshit

India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs Balram Jaiswal

India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs Ms. Vaishali Singh Koshal and Ors.

Department of Personnel and Training & Anr. Vs Dalip Kumar & Ors.

Mohd. Ajmal Vs Sultana

Union Public Service Commission Vs Dr. (Mrs.) Vidyut Shikha & Ors.