2025:KER:25227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 OP (CAT) NO. 202 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA NO.910 OF 2017 DATED 03.10.2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN OA: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ALL INDIA RADIO, PRASAR BHARATI CORPORATION, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, PRASAR BHARATI CORPORATION, NEW DELHI-110 001. 4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043. 5 THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER (DOORDARSHAN), CHENNAI-600 005. SRI T C KRISHNA DSGI IN CHARGE RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS IN OA: 1 M.J.ALEYAMMA, RETIRED UDC, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043. 2 G.HARIDAS NAIR, RETIRED ASSISTANT, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043, RESIDING AT GEETHAS, TC 28/272, MRA 190, OTTUKAL STREET, SAUPARNIKA LANE, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024. SRI S VISHNU THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(CAT) 202/2020 2 2025:KER:25227 J U D G M E N T K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.910/2017 dated 03.10.2018, Union of India and its officers preferred this OP(CAT). 2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are as follows: The respondents/applicants are retired as UD Clerk and Assistant from Doordarshan Kendra, Thiruvananthapuram on 30.11.2016. They were sanctioned Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) amounting to Rs.8,84,400/- and Rs.9,38,850/- respectively by the competent authorities. However, as per Annexures-A1 and A2 communications, the applicants were informed that a portion of their DCRG would be recovered due to the wrong fixation of their pay with effect from 01.01.2006. 3. The respondents/applicants approached the Tribunal seeking a declaration that, recovery of amounts from DCRG is violative of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in State of OP(CAT) 202/2020 3 2025:KER:25227 Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others [(2015) 4 SCC 334]. 4. The short question involved in this case is whether recovery of excess payments can be effected from the retired employee?. The Central Administrative Tribunal on the basis of clause (ii) held that, recovery is impermissible in view of the dictum laid down in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal are extracted hereunder: “6. The issue involved has been subject matter for consideration on more than one occasion before this Tribunal itself. The seminal judgment concerning recovery of amounts from government employees is the Rafiq Masih judgment wherein its has been ordered thus:- 12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarize the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: OP(CAT) 202/2020 4 2025:KER:25227 (6) (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class- III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. 7. The only exception is that it is qualified by a subsequent judgment rendered in Jagdev's case that if an undertaking had been obtained from the concerned employee that he or she is ready to return any excess payment effected, recovery is permissible. The respondents have no case that any such undertaking has been obtained. The applicant also submitted copies of the judgments of this Tribunal in OA 530/2016 and 299/18 wherein similar relief had been granted. The present OA being identical as the applicants are retired personnel, we are of the view that the reliefs sought for are to be granted to the applicants. Accordingly, the reliefs sought for are granted to the applicants in full with the interest portion being restricted to applicable GPF rates. The OA is disposed of with no order as to costs.” OP(CAT) 202/2020 5 2025:KER:25227 5. On going through the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and upon hearing the rival submissions of the counsel at the Bar, we do not find any illegality or perversity, much less fallacy in the order of the Tribunal. The present OP(CAT) fails and it stands dismissed. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/- K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE Sbna/ OP(CAT) 202/2020 6 2025:KER:25227 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 202/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 11.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.PAO/BDK/CHN/PEN/16-17/685/2029 DATED 15.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, CHENNAI. ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.02.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF OM NO.F.NO.18/03/2015-ESTT(PAY) DATED 02.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL, I AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. ANNEXURE A6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.08.2015 IN OA NO.310/01119/2015 OF THE MADRAS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE A7 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.06.2017 IN OA NO.18000438/2017 OF THE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE A8 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F.NO.C-18013/24/2017- S.II/1443 DATED 28.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A9 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2017 IN OA NO.170/00927/2016 OF THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE R1 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10.06.2013. ANNEXURE R2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 IN OA NO.170/00813/2016 OF THE CT, BANGALORE. ANNEXURE R3 COPY OF THE OPINION OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS BRANCH, SECRETARIAT, KOLKATA. EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.180/00910/2017 FILED BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 20.03.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.180/00910/2017 DATED 03.10.2018 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.