Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court- In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order dated 25-08-2015 (‘impugned order’) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Division Bench of Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee*, JJ., while setting aside the impugned order, held that the demand made by the respondents for the refund of the differential higher amount paid to petitioner stand quashed. The Court directed that the terminal benefit of the petitioner including pension would be fixed based on the higher pay scale, which petitioner received for more than 14 years”.


In the instant case, the petitioner joined the service as a ‘Senior Research Assistant’ and was now re-designated as ‘Economic Officer’. Later, based on his performance, the petitioner was promoted to ‘Research Officer’ on 08-04-1996. Even though the promotion was on ad hoc basis for the period of six months, eventually the period was extended for more than 14 years.

On 13-07-2010, the respondents decided to revert petitioner to the post of Economic Officer. The respondents vide order 06-03-2013, stated to refix petitioner’s pay by reducing the same to that of a Senior Research Assistant and sought to make recoveries as the petitioner had continued to receive the higher salary of a Research Officer till 06-03-2013.


The Court opined that once there is no challenge to the reversion per se, the petitioner cannot be granted pay protection qua the pay being drawn by him after 06-03-2013. However, the Court also opined that the respondents’ decision to make recoveries of the differential amount for the period of 13-07-2010 to 06-03-20213, from the petitioner, when they continued to pay petitioner higher salary of a Research Officer is unsustainable. Whereas the Court on petitioner’s contention of restoring his pay-scale as it was before passing impugned order dated 06-03-2013, relied on the contention raised by respondents that the position was on ad hoc basis and respondent rightly reverted petitioner from the position. So, petitioner would not be entitled to the pay of the Research Officer from the post the petitioner stands reverted.

The Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the present petition by directing that the demand made by the respondents for the refund of the differential higher amount paid to the petitioner for the period between 13-07-2010 to 06-03-2013 would stand quashed and further directed respondents to grant petitioner terminal dues, including pension by considering the salary which petitioner was drawing for 14 years as a Research Officer.

[Kishore Kumar Makwana v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3614, decided on: 15-05-2024]

*Judgement Authored by: Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For Petitioner: Shiva Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent: Vivek Goyal, CGSPC; Gokul Sharma, Sanjeev Jyoti, Advocates.

Buy Constitution of India  HERE

Constitution of India

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.