Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010141892025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4170/2025 UNION OF INDIA, PRASAR BHARATI REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (E) / HEAD OF OFFICE, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, R.G. BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024 VERSUS KAJAL BHATTACHARJEE AND 3 ORS SON OF LATE KAMALA KANTA BHATTACHARJEE, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (E), DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, PRASAR BHARATI, R.G. BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024 2:CHANDAN DAS SON OF LATE CHITARANJAN DAS ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (E) DOORDARSHAN KENDRA PRASAR BHARATI R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI-781024 3:TILAK BORO SON OF LATE MUNIRAM BORO ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (E) DOORDARSHAN KENDRA PRASAR BHARATI R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI-781024 4:HARI CHANDRA MEDHI SON OF LATE RAM CHARAN MEDHI UPPER DIVISION CLERK Page No.# 2/4 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (E) DOORDARSHAN KENDRA PRASAR BHARATI R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI-78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D J DAS, ASSTT.S.G.I.,MR H GUPTA Advocate for the Respondent : MR S CHOUDHURY (ALL RESPONDENTS), MS R MEDHI(ALL RESPONDENTS) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 10.09.2025 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Ms. U. Dutta, learned counsel for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the impugned order dated 28.03.2024, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (in short, CAT), Guwahati Bench, in Original Application No. 040/00122/22, by which the decision to recover the erroneous payments made by the appellants to the respondents, in respect of grant of the 3rd MACP was set aside, has been put to challenge. He submits that the respondents, who are employees of the All India Radio, Doordarshan Kendra, Guwahati, were granted the 3rd MACP benefits on a date prior to their entitlement. 3. On coming to learn that the respondents had been granted the 3rd MACP erroneously, the respondents took a decision to recover the erroneous payments made to the respondents. The respondents thereafter approached the Central Page No.# 3/4 Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, vide OA No. 122/22, for setting aside the decision taken by the appellants, for recovery of the erroneous payments made to the respondents, by taking support of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 4. The learned Tribunal thereafter, vide the impugned order, disposed of OA No. 040/00122/22, by setting aside the decision of the petitioner to recover the erroneous payments made in relation to the 3rd MACP, on the ground that the respondents belonged to Class-III service and recovery of excess/erroneous payments from the Class-III & Class-IV employees was impermissible in law. 5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the respondents had executed undertakings at the time of taking the benefits of their pay, which included the 3rd MACP, that in the event they received excess or erroneous pay, as detected subsequently, any excess payments made would be refunded to the Government. He submits that when the respondents had made undertakings that they would return the erroneous payments made to them, the learned Tribunal could not have issued the impugned order, setting aside the decision of the respondents to recover the erroneous payments made to the respondents herein. 6. We have considered the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. 7. There is nothing in the pleadings of the writ petitioner before us or the learned Tribunal to show that the respondents had executed undertakings, Page No.# 4/4 which stated that they would have to repay the erroneous payments made by the Government with regard to the 3rd MACP Scheme. As such, we do not find any infirmity with the decision of the learned Tribunal in deciding the matter on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra). However, in the event, the petitioner is able to trace out the undertakings, which had been allegedly executed by the respondents, which bound the respondents to return any erroneous payments made to them under the 3rd MACP Scheme, the petitioner is given the liberty to approach the learned Tribunal afresh, by way of a review petition or otherwise, as per law and if so advised. This observation has been made as the said issue regarding execution of undertakings by the respondents and the undertakings itself, have allegedly not been brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant