Heard Mr.B.Gurudas, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs.K.Rajitha, learned Senior Central Govt., Standing Counsel for Respondents, who takes notice on behalf of the Respondents.

2.This case is regarding recovery of the excess paid pay and allowances from the applicant consequent to his pay being fixed in the cadre of Inspector Posts in VI CPC in the scale of Rs.7450-11500 with Grade Pay Rs.4600/-, vide Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, OM dt. 24.10.2017.In this nexus the 4^th respondent, basing on the decision in the case of Sri B. Narayana Swamy, Retd. ASPs of the Director Accounts Postal, Hyderabad, who comes under the jurisdiction of Telangana Postal Circle, has ordered recovery of around Rs.12 lakhs claiming that the pay scale of Rs.7450-11500 is not to be granted, instead, the IP cadre officers have to be granted only Rs.5500-9000  with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. Applicant claims that his issue comes under the jurisdiction  of A.P Postal Circle and hence he has represented to the General Manager (Finance), A.P Postal Circle on  07.04.2020 and 13.04.2020, which are yet to be disposed.

3. The contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant’s pay has been correctly fixed as per OM dt.30.08.2008 of the Dept. of the Expenditure. The pay of the applicant was in fact fixed as per Rule-7 of CCS (RP) Rules and that even the recovery was irregular since it was ordered by an incompetent authority i.e. Respondent No.4.  Further, Rules quoted by the respondents apply to fresh recruits and are  not applicable to a senior employee like the applicant, who is now working as a Senior ASP in the A.P  Postal Circle.The learned counsel for the applicant cited the judgments of the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal namely, Jaipur,Ernakulam, Guwahati as well as that of this Tribunal claiming  that they are in favour of the applicant in respect of the issue under adjudication.  Therefore, the applicant prays for an interim relief for stoppage of recovery from salary till the disposal of the OA.  The applicant is due to retire in August, 2020.

4. In response, learned counsel for the respondents has filed written instructions received from the respondents. From the said instructions, it is seen that the recovery has been ordered based upon the observations of the DAP, Hyderabad, who comes under the jurisdiction of Telangana Postal Circle and his decision has been applied to the case of the applicant.     Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that recovery has also commenced from March 2020 and therefore, issuing any interim order stalling the recovery is not called for at this juncture of time.  She prays that the respondents may be directed to dispose of the applicant’s representation pending with the GM (Finance), Vijayawada.

5. Contesting this submission, learned counsel for the applicant stated that there are three specific OMs of Dept. of Expenditure viz., OM dt. 13.11.2009, 16.11.2009 & 30.08.2008, in which, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to certain orders wherein the authorities subordinate to the Ministry cannot issue any instructions in regard to the aspect being adjudicated.

6. Keeping the above facts in view, especially in regard to the adjudication of similar issues by different Benches of this Tribunal as well as the OMs cited by the applicant, this Tribunal is of the view that a prima facie case has been made out and that the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant, particularly in the context of the order being issued by an authority, who is not competent to do so. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to effect any further recovery from the pay of the applicant till the disposal of the OA.

7. Four weeks time is granted for filing reply by the respondents. Post the case on 05.08.2020.In the meanwhile respondents are directed to dispose of the representations  made by the applicant  and the outcome of such disposal be indicated in the reply statement for further adjudication as deemed fit.