Ms. Vertika Sharma, Adv v. AKASHVANI AND DOORDARSHAN ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS

Aggrieved by the refixation and of their pay retrospectively and recoveries being made on that account, the respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal1 by way of OA 261/20162.

2. Before the Tribunal, the respondents, at the very outset, submitted that they were restricting their relief to the aspect of recovery and that they had resigned themselves to the aspect of refixation. Signature Not Verified 1 “Tribunal” hereinafter 2 Akashwani & Doordarsan Administrative Staff Association (Recognized) v UOI Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:09.01.2025 21:40:50 W.P.(C) 17590/2024

3. Before the Tribunal, qua the recoveries, the respondents relied on the well-known decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Rafiq Masih3, para 6 of which sets out certain circumstances in which no recovery of excess payments could be made from government employees. The petitioners, per contra, relied on the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh v High Court of Punjab and Haryana4 in which the High Court carved out an exception the proscription against recoveries as contained circumstance (ii) envisaged in the Rafiq Masih judgment in a case in which, at the time when the pay was refixed, the employee concerned either submitted an undertaking to repay the excess payments in the event that the excess payment was subsequently found to be unjustified or erroneous, or was placed on notice that such recovery was likely. The relevant passage from Jagdev Singh reads thus: In State of Punjab v Rafiq Masih this Court held that while “10. it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law : Recovery from employees belonging to Class III (i) and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). Recovery from retired employees, or employees who (ii) are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. the excess (iii) Recovery payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. from employees, when in cases where an employee has (iv) Recovery wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should Signature Not Verified