C. Raveendran v Union of India & Others

# _`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`_ ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL ``` ``` & ``` ## _`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR`_ ``` FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946 ``` ## _`OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2023`_ ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2022 IN OA NO.1012 OF 2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH ``` ## _`PETITIONER/APPLICANT:`_ ``` C. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,(RETD), ALL INDIA RADIO KANNUR STATION, KANNU-RESIDING AT SREEKUNJU CHEMPAD P.O., THALASSERY., PIN - 670694 ``` ``` BY ADV. C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR ``` ## _`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`_ ``` 1UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2PRASARBHARATHI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 ``` ``` 3DIRECTOR GENERAL, ALL INDIA RADIO, AKASHVANI BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 ``` ``` 4HEAD OF OFFICE, ALL INDIA RADIO, KANNUR, PIN - 670004 ``` ``` -2- ``` ``` OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15549 ``` ``` BY ADV. SRI.T.C.KRISHNA (DSGI IN CHARGE) ``` ``` THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2023 ``` ``` -3- ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15549 ``` ## _`JUDGMENT`_ ## _`K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J.`_ Dissatisfied with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 23.09.2022 in O.A.No.1012/2018, the applicant preferred this OP(CAT). 2. The petitioner/applicant approached the Tribunal claiming the following reliefs: - “(i) To call for the records leading upto the issue of Annexure-A13 and A18 and quash the same. - (ii) To direct the 4[th] respondent not to effect any recovery from his salary or any other amount due to him. - (iii) To grant such other relief or reliefs that may be prayed for or that are found to be just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. - (iv) To grant cost of this O.A.” 3. The petitioner, C. Raveendran, was working as an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the All India Radio, Kannur. While implementing the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 [hereinafter referred ``` OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2023 ``` ``` -4- ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15549 ``` to as, ‘the CCS(RP) Rules’], the pay of the petitioner/applicant was revised on various occasions due to erroneous interpretations. 4. The respondents also accepted that, there were a series of errors in implementing the relevant part of the 6[th] pay Commission Report, which led to erroneous pay fixation in many offices. The respondents contended that the beneficiaries of these erroneous fixation took the benefit of the same and have filed Original Applications before various Benches of the tribunal across the country. 5. The applicant has still been drawing the benefit under the erroneous calculation. The applicant approached the tribunal and preferred this Original Application, when he received a recovery notice stating that an excess amount of Rs.4,15,302/- had been paid to him on account of erroneous fixation of pay with effect from 01.01.2006. 6. The respondents have issued Annexure A12 letter to him, in which, it was stated that an amount ``` OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2023 ``` ``` -5- ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15549 ``` of Rs.4,15,302/- was paid to him as excess pay and allowance and the same is due for recovery. They have also produced a due-drawn statement applicable to him in this regard. Thereafter, the respondents issued Annexure A13 notice dated 22.02.2018 and Annexure A18 notice dated 30.11.2018 directing the petitioner/applicant to remit the amount. 7. Challenging Annexures A13 and A18 notices the applicant approached the tribunal and he obtained a favourable order of stay for the recovery, till the disposal of the Original application. During the pendency of the Original Application, the applicant retired from service on 31.05.2020. On 24.02.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant made a submission before the tribunal that, the respondents were not releasing the pensionary benefits since the petitioner had filed the Original Application. On the basis of the submission, the tribunal directed the respondents to disburse the retiral benefits after deducting the claim of the respondents with regard to the ``` OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2023 ``` ``` -6- ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15549 ``` recovery. 8. Noticing the rival contentions of the parties, the tribunal allowed the claim of the petitioner/applicant and held that the recovery is impermissible. The tribunal further directed the respondents to refund the amount retained by them, which they had deducted from the pensionary benefits due to the applicant at the time of his retirement. However, the tribunal did not award the interest for the amount of pensionary benefits retained by the respondents as per the interim order of the tribunal. 9. The grievance of the petitioner/applicant is that the tribunal ought to have granted interest for the amount of pensionary benefits retained by the department. 10. On the other hand, Sri.T.C.Krishna, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (in charge) appearing for the Union of India submitted that the impugned order is legally sustainable and no interference from this Court is warranted. ``` OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2023 ``` ``` -7- ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15549 ``` 11. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books. 12. The main contention of the petitioner/applicant is that, erroneous fixation of pay was not the mistake of the petitioner. Due to the erroneous fixation of pay and consequential proceedings, his pensionary benefits were retained as per the interim order of the tribunal and thereby, he lost substantial amount by way of interest. The grievance projected by the petitioner is that the tribunal ought to have awarded interest for the amount retained by the department. 13. Before further discussion it would be appropriate to extract the relevant paragraphs of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. “Accordingly, we find that this matter is squarely covered under the conditions stipulated in paragraphs 12(i) and 12 (iii) of the Rafiq Masih (supra) judgment. It is not fair at this length of time for the respondents to turn around and issue a notice of recovery after the amounts were given more than ten years prior to the ``` -8- ``` ``` OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15549 ``` issue of the recovery notice. What is to be considered, as also laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in W.A. No.310/2022 dated 03.06.2022 in University of Calicut & Ors. vs. Dr.C. Rajendran & Ors. (2022) ICO 705 is that this Tribunal should examine, whether the circumstances in which the recovery of excess amount paid by mistake is being done would result in the hardship of such nature which would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employers right to recover. Such an interpretation is also found in Rafiq Masih (supra). In other words, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held that interference would be called for only in such cases where it would be iniquitous to recover the payment made. In paragraph 11 of the Hon’ble High Court held as under : “11. The only circumstance in which the recovery of excess amount paid by mistake is not recovered is when the recovery would result in the hardship of such nature which would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employers right to recover. In other words interference would be called for only in such cases were it would be iniquitous to recover the payment made. In order to ascertain the parameters of the above consideration and test to be applied, reference needs to be made to a situations noticed in the judgment in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih White Washer [(2015) 4 SCC 334]. The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the constitution of India for ``` -9- ``` ``` OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15549 ``` doing complete justice cannot be treated as a precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is to be noticed that public money wrongly paid at the instance of the official cannot be allowed to be retained except in the circumstances noted above. In cases where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error was detected or corrected, within a short time of the wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery.” 10. Flowing from the above, we hold that the recovery at this point of time from the pension of a retired UDC would be iniquitous and attracting the circumstances which have been laid down in the above judgment. We, therefore, do not allow the said recovery to be made and accordingly direct the respondents to refund the amount retained by them which they had deducted from the pensionary benefits due to the applicant at the time of his retirement. However, wer are not directing any payment of interest etc, in this matter as the retention was made with the direction of this Tribunal during the course of hearing of the O.A. on 09.04.2021. Further, it is also made clear that all other pensionary benefits, if not already released, should be released immediately to the applicant as due if there are no other issues to be considered.” On going through the order of the Central ``` -10- ``` ``` OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15549 ``` Administrative Tribunal, we do not find any illegality, perversity, much less fallacy in the order of the tribunal. The tribunal is justified in disallowing the interest to the petitioner/applicant, in our view. O.P.(CAT) is devoid of merit and therefore, stands dismissed. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` AMIT RAWAL JUDGE ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE ``` ``` vv ``` ``` -11- ``` ``` OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15549 ``` ## _`APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 155/2023`_ ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE A13TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO.NO.KNR-7(2)/2017-18/AC/319 DT:22.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ``` - _`ANNEXURE A18 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO.NO.KNR-7(2)/2018-19/AC/1078 DT:30.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`_ - _`ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT DT:26.9.2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`_ - _`ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT DT:20.6.2010`_ - _`ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KNR/-1(11) 2013-S DT:7.1.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`_ - _`ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING FIXATION OF PAY ISSUED ON 25.7.2013 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`_ - _`ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO.NO.A26022/02/2012-S.II DT: 19.9.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ENCLOSING A COPY OF THE E-MAIL`_ - _`ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT NO.KNBR/10(2) 2015-S /2440 DT:27.7.2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`_ - _`ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING PAY FIXATION ON 22.3.2016`_ - _`ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT ISSUED ON 18.5.2016 BY THE`_ ``` OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2023 ``` ``` -12- ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15549 ``` ``` 4TH RESPONDENT ``` - _`ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.26022/02/2012-S.II DT:10.5.2016`_ - _`ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO F.NO.26022/02/2012-S II DT:5.1.2016 ALONG WITH MEMO. F.NO.MISC.1/330/2012-PPC DT:31.12.2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT`_ - _`ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION F.NO.MISC.1/330/2012-PPC(PT.) DT:9.3.2016`_ - _`ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.KNR/7(2)2017-18/AC/66 DT:5.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`_ - _`ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.KNR.21(2)2018-S/RC/316 DT:22.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`_ - _`ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT:1.3.2018`_ - _`ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE OM.F.NO.18/03/2015ESTT. (PAY-1)DT:2.3.2016`_ - _`ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.A22015/16/2018-S.II DT:22.11.2018`_ - _`ANNEXURE R1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION, ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE REVISED PAY RULES (CCS(REVISED PAY) RULES 2008)`_ - _`ANNEXURE R2 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.A26022/02/2012-S-II DATED 3/4.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE DG AIR NEW DELHI`_ - _`ANNEXURE R3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A - 26015/3/2014-BAP DATED 20.8.2014 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF I&B ALONG WITH THE ID NOTE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF`_ ``` -13- ``` ``` OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15549 ``` - _`EXPENDITURE VIDE DATED 12.8.2014.`_ - _`ANNEXURE R4 TRUE COPY OF THE DG :AIR LETTER NO.A26022/02/2012-S-II DATED 05.01.2016`_ - _`ANNEXURE R5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT FOR GRANTING PAY SCALE WITH GRADE PAY RS.4600/- IN PB2`_ - _`ANNEXURE R6 TRUE COPY OF OPTION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT FOR 6TH CPC PAY SCALE.`_ - _`ANNEXURE R7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT WITH A COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF SERVICE PARTICULARS OF BOTH THE APPLICANT AND SHRI. K.BALACHANDRAN DATED 22.2.2018`_ - _`ANNEXURE R8 TRUE COPIES OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FROM THE APPLICANT`_ - _`ANNEXURE MA 1 TRUE COPY OF THE PPO NO.285542000718`_ - _`ANNEXURE MA 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ON 30.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICER (ALL INDIA RADIO) CHENNAI`_ - _`ANNEXURE MA 3 TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE PAO(AIR)`_ - _`ANNEXURE MA 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KNR-13(2) 2020 DT:22.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`_ - _`ANNEXURE MA 5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT:25.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`_ - _`EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.180/1012/2018 BEFORE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH`_ - _`EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS`_ ``` -14- ``` ``` OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15549 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER WAS FILED BY THE PETITIONER ``` - _`EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.631/2020`_ - _`EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 09/04/2021 IN OA 1012/2018`_ ``` EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT: 23.9.2022 IN OA NO.1012/2018 ```