1. The applicant has filed the present OA, seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the revised terms and conditions dt.17.5.2019 declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the law of the land and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to grant and to restore all the allowances of the applicant as per term and condition dt. 25.1.2016 with all the consequential benefits including arrears of difference of allowances with interest.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dt.3/7.6.2021 (Annexure.A/2) and order dated 30.3.2021 (Annex.A/3), adjusting the arrears of NFSG of the applicant in the amount of alleged recovery in compliance of order dt.17.5.2019 and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to release the arrears of NFSG to the applicant at an early date with interest.
(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants.”
2. The Brief facts that arise in this OA are: The applicant joined India Trade Promotion Organization (ITPO) on depuration on 30.06.2015 as General Manager (Security). The terms and condition of the applicant were not finalized by the respondents until 25.01.2016, till when the applicant was getting emoluments as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement against which he applied for and was selected for General Manager (Security). Subsequently On 17.05.2019 the terms and conditions of the applicant were revised by the respondents retrospectively making them applicable w.e.f. 25.01.2016. Since the said terms and conditions/emoluments were lesser than the terms and conditions stipulated finalized by the order dated 25.01.2016 (Annexure A-11), the applicant preferred a representation dated 19.05.2019 followed by reminder dated 21.06.2019 against the change in terms and condition. Pursuant to the said representations, Board of Directors held a meeting No. 211 held on 21.01.2020, whereby the said excess amount received by the applicant between 25.06.2016 to 17.05.2019 was waived by the Board of Director. However, this decision was reviewed by the respondents and an amount of Rs. 17,83,996/- was stated to be recovered from the applicant. The respondents in their own wisdom have waived a substantial part of the amount, while Rs. 4,75,718/- have been recovered from the arrears of NFSG received by the applicant. Against this illegal recovery he has preferred this OA.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his claim submits that while making the said recovery; (i) the applicant was not been put to any notice, which is in complete violation of Principle of Natural Justice; (ii) when the terms and conditions reviewed by the respondents vide order dated 17.05.2019 could not be made applicable from a retrospective date (iii) The revised terms and conditions are contrary to the Govt. of India OM dated 17.06.2010 in which it is clearly stated that in case of Central Government Deputationist the allowances would be regulated with mutual consent of the lending and the borrowing organization, and these are Travelling Allowance, Transfer TA, HRA, Transport Allowance, Children Education Allowance, LTC, Joining Time pay etc.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the OA and submits that the applicant, was in fact governed by the terms mentioned in the advertisement and, therefore, the terms and conditions, so stipulated in the advertisement, were made applicable to the applicant w.e.f. 17.05.2019. In fact the applicant was inadvertently been paid higher emoluments vide order dated 25.01.2016, in order to correct the mistake; the respondents have made the said recovery from the NFSG grade granted to the applicant. The Learned counsel for the respondents’ states that no similarly placed person is getting the said higher benefits, therefore there is no discrimination they have rather extended parity to all similarly placed employees. He further adds that Board of Director have in fact taken a lenient view and deducted only an amount of Rs. 4,75,718/- though, the amount actually due from the applicant was Rs. 17,83,996/-. Since the amount was in advertently paid to the applicant, and the applicant was not entitled for the same and the recovery has been made. He further adds that this is a huge loss to the exchequer and the money should reach to be desired source and accordingly, they have taken appropriate steps.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
6. From the arguments and record following emerge. i) It is not in dispute that while making the said recovery, the applicant has not been put to any notice therefore it there is a clear violation of Principle of Natural Justice; (ii) That the applicant has in no way contributed in receipt of the amount i.e. there is no act of commission or omission by way of which the applicant has been in receipt of the said amount; (iii) The respondents by way of their own order dated June 2016 had extended the benefits of the applicant, therefore the applicant was not responsible in getting the said amount received by him. (iv) There is no explanation put forth for a taking a decision to waive certain part of the amount and recover the rest except lenient view, a partial magnanimity cannot be accepted.
7. In view of the observation made herein above, the respondents are directed that the amount so deducted from the NSFG scale from the applicant may be refunded to the applicant, within a period of eight weeks from receipt of a copy of this order. It may be clear that the applicant will not be entitled to any interest.
8. The OA is disposed of in view of the aforesaid terms. No costs.
