WP/30900/2023 of C.SAROJA Vs THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL-
W.P.No.30900 of 2023
__________
Page1 of 12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
W.P.No. 30900 of 2023
and
W.M.P.No.30553 of 2025
C.Saroja …. Petitioner
Vs
1. The Central Administrative Tribunal-
Chennai Bench, Rep.by its Registrar,
Additional City Civil Court Buildings
High Court Campus, Chennai.
2. Union of India
Rep.by Secretary
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
‘A’ Wing, Shastri Bhavan
New Delhi – 110 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30900 of 2023
__________
Page2 of 12
3. Prasar Bharati Secretariat
Rep.by the Chief Executive Officer
Mandi House, Copernicus Marg
New Delhi.
4. The Director General
All India Radio
Akashvani Bhavan
Parliament Street
New Delhi – 110 001.
5. The Deputy Director (Admin)
All India Radio, Akashvani Bhavan
Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001.
6. The Deputy Director General (Engg.)/HOO
All India Radio, Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai.
7. Pay & Accounts Officer
All India Radio,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. .… Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying to issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30900 of 2023
__________
Page3 of 12
in connection with an impugned order passed by the 1 st respondent Tribunal in
O.A.No.589 of 2020 dated 02.03.2023, and quash the same, consequently direct
the respondents to place the case of the petitioner before the Depart ment of
Expenditure for obtaining an express approval for waiver, as done in the case of
Shri Kannan, Steno Gr.I (a similarly placed employee of Doordarshan, Chennai)
as per OM dated 02.03.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Muthukumar
for M/s.Paul and Paul
For Respondents : R1 – Tribunals
Mr.V.Chandrasekaran
Senior Panel Counsel for R2 to R7
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)
The petitioner has instituted the present Writ Petition assailing the order
dated 02.03.2023 passed by the first respondent-Tribunal in O.A.No.589 of
2020 and seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to place her case
before the Department of Expenditure for obtaining express approval for
waiver, on par with the treatment extended to Shri Kannan, Stenographe r
Grade-I, Doordarshan, Chennai, under Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30900 of 2023
__________
Page4 of 12
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Stenographer Grade-III
(Tamil) on 20.06.1992 in a temporary capacity. Subsequently, she was
regularised and placed on probation for two years. Thereafter, she was granted
the first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme with effect from
15.06.2004, pursuant to which, her designation was upgraded to Stenographer
Grade II. By notification dated 07.12.2017, the post of Stenographer Grade II
was classified under Group ‘C’. Her pay was initially fixed in terms of the VI
Central Pay Commission by adopting the upgraded scale of Rs.6500-10500,
with effect from 01.01.2006. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 03.10.2012,
her pay was re-fixed by taking into account the upgraded scale of R s.6500-
10500 for determining the basic pay in the revised pay band, which was also
affirmed by the Prasar Bharati Secretariat. Thereafter, a clarification dated
31.12.2015, mandated multiplication of the existing pay by a factor of 1.86 (t he
fitment formula under the Sixth Pay Commission) with rounding off, resulti ng
in further re-fixation on 27.01.2016, whereby the petitioner’s basic pay wa s
reduced from Rs.12,090/- to Rs.10,230/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner
submitted representations relying upon judicial precedents and orders of the
Tribunal, wherein the recovery of excess payment had been waived in
analogous circumstances. Notwithstanding the same, the sixth respondent issued
a show cause notice on 06.11.2020, proposing recovery of Rs.6,24,984/- and by
order dated 14.12.2020, directed recovery in 36 installments. The petitioner ’s
challenge before the Tribunal in O.A.No.589 of 2020 was dismissed on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30900 of 2023
__________
Page5 of 12
02.03.2023. Hence, she has filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the recovery
directed against the petitioner is unsustainable in law, being contrar y to the
binding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab
v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [(2015) 4 SCC 334], wherein it has been held
that recovery of excess payments from Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ em ployees is
impermissible, in the absence of misrepresentation or fraud, partic ularly when
such recovery is sought after a lapse of five years. He further subm itted that at
the time of re-fixation on 03.10.2012, the petitioner was a Group ‘C’ e mployee,
and the subsequent reclassification of her post as Group ‘B’ cannot
retrospectively deprive her of the protection extended under the Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) case. Further, the recovery has been ordered after more than
eight years of continuous payment, which is well beyond the permissible fi ve-
year period, and that the relevant date for reckoning such limitation is the date
of order of recovery and, not the date of re-fixation. The petitioner ha d acted
bona fidely, and the excess payment arose solely on account of the inconsistent
and contradictory stands of the respondents. It is also contended that the
reliance placed on the undertaking furnished in 2008 is legally untenabl e, since
no undertaking was given at the time of re-fixation in 2012, thereby rendering
the decision in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh
[(2016) 14 SCC 267] is inapplicable, since that decision turned on the exist ence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30900 of 2023
__________
Page6 of 12
of a specific and contemporaneous undertaking. Further, the Office
Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, dated
06.02.2014 and 02.03.2016 mandates express approval of the Department of
Expenditure for waiver of recovery, which was not obtained in the pre sent case,
and the unilateral decision of the 5 th respondent, based on an erroneous
understanding of law, vitiates the order. The Tribunal’s distinction of K.Kannan
case is equally untenable, as the decisive factor was the lapse of more than five
years before recovery, which squarely applies to the petitioner’s c ase. In these
circumstances, the impugned order of recovery is arbitrary, contrary to settled
law, and liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 7 submitted that
the petitioner was initially appointed as Stenographer Grade-III under the Group
‘C’ category. Subsequently, the cadre was re-designated as Stenographer Grade-
II, and thereafter merged with Stenographer Grade-I carrying Grade Pay of
Rs.4,200/-, which falls within Group ‘B’. Upon completion of 12 years of
service, the petitioner was granted the benefit of Assured Career Progression
(ACP) in Grade Pay Rs.4,200/- and was later extended 2 nd Modified Assured
Career Progression (MACP) in the Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/-, thereby enjoying
all benefits of a Group ‘B’ post. It was further submitted tha t after
implementation of the VI Central Pay Commission, classification of pos ts is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30900 of 2023
__________
Page7 of 12
determined based on pay scales. The petitioner, by virtue of her prese nt pay,
squarely falls under Group ‘B’. The contention of the petitioner tha t she ought
to be treated as a Group ‘C’ employee on the basis of her initi al appointment is
untenable, as the post of Stenographer Grade-III with Grade Pay Rs.2,400/-
continues to exist independently, whereas the petitioner has long since m oved
into the higher cadre. The erroneous fixation of pay effected in January 2013
was duly rectified on 27.01.2016, which remains undisputed. It is contended
that the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih (White Washer’s case) are
inapplicable to the case of the petitioner, as she cannot be categoriz ed as a
Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ employee drawing lower pay, but she is, in f act, a
Group ‘B’ officer receiving higher pay and allowances. The exempti on from
recovery contemplated in the said judgment and reiterated in DoPT Office
Memorandum dated 02.03.2016, is intended to extend protection only to
employees in the lower categories, and not those in Group ‘B’ posts. The
petitioner is due to retire only on 30.06.2028, and therefore, the embargo against
recovery within one year of retirement, is not attracted. The c ause of action
arises only from the pay structure evolved under the VI Pay Commission,
pursuant to which, the petitioner has been rightly classified under Grou p ‘B’. In
such circumstances, the Tribunal has correctly held that recovery is permissible.
Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30900 of 2023
__________
Page8 of 12
5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
6. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether the recover y of
alleged excess payment effected by the respondents, as confirmed by the
Tribunal, is legally sustainable.
7. It is not in dispute that the alleged excess payment arose solely on
account of an erroneous fixation of pay carried out by the respondents, a nd not
due to any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. Such excess
payment continued for a prolonged period exceeding five years before the
impugned recovery was initiated. In this context, the law laid dow n by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said case in State of Punjab Vs.Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) squarely governs the present case. The Hon’ble Apex
Court categorically held that recovery of excess payments from employees
belonging to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ in the absence of misrepresentation or fraud, is
impermissible in law, particularly when such recovery is sought aft er a
prolonged period. The said principle is to prevent undue hardship to employee s
who had no role in the error and had received the amounts bona fidely.
8. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said judgment i s
extracted hereunder :
“(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and
Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30900 of 2023
__________
Page9 of 12
(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.”
9. In the present case, even assuming that the petitioner is presently
working as a Stenographer Grade-I, which falls under Group ‘B’ cat egory, it is
admitted that at the time of re-fixation in the year 2012, she wa s holding a post
classified under Group ‘C’ post. The subsequent re-classification or upgradation
of the post, cannot retrospectively alter the character of the pet itioner’s service
so as to deprive her of the protection available under the Rafiq Ma sih case
(White Washer Case). Further, the recovery proceedings were initiat ed only in
the year 2020, nearly eight years after the re-fixation in 2012 and more than
four years after the subsequent re-fixation in 2016. Such belated recovery
clearly falls within the prohibited category identified by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, wherein recovery after a lapse of more than five years, had been held to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30900 of 2023
__________
Page10 of 12
be impermissible. However, the Tribunal failed to properly appreci ate the
binding nature of the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih case (White Washer’s
case) and erred in placing undue emphasis on the present classificati on of the
petitioner’s post, while overlooking the relevant period during which the excess
payment was made. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is therefore vitiated
by misapplication of settled legal principles.
10. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
impugned order dated 02.03.2023 passed in O.A.No.589 of 2020 by the first
respondent- Tribunal, is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order is
set aside. The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner in
accordance with the relevant applicable Rules. There shall be no orde r as to
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.V.,J.) (K.G.T.,J.)
02.04.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Case Citation: Yes/No
ms
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30900 of 2023
__________
Page11 of 12
To
1. The Registrar,
The Central Administrative Tribunal-
Chennai Bench,Additional City Civil Court Buildings
High Court Campus, Chennai.
2. The Secretary
Union of India,Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
‘A’ Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.
3. The Chief Executive Officer
Prasar Bharati Secretariat
Mandi House, Copernicus Marg,New Delhi.
4. The Director General
All India Radio, Akashvani Bhavan
Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001.
5. The Deputy Director (Admin)
All India Radio, Akashvani Bhavan
Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001.
6. The Deputy Director General (Engg.)/HOO
All India Radio, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai.
7. Pay & Accounts Officer
All India Radio, Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30900 of 2023
__________
Page12 of 12
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
and
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.,
ms
W.P.No. 30900 of 2023
and
W.M.P.No.30553 of 2023
02.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis