ups_00992 — Recovery of excess payment of TRCA erroneously paid is legal when a specific undertaking has been furnished by the employee for such refund of excess payment erroneously made

Recovery of excess payment of TRCA erroneously paid is legal when a specific undertaking has been furnished by the employee for such refund of excess payment erroneously made — This chunk discusses the process by which the TRCA (Traveling Allowance) of employees was revised, arrears paid, and then later re-evaluated based on workload statistics. The Applicant in this case r... — Facts: The Applicant was appointed as GDS BPM, Padmadeipur BO in the TRCA slab of ₹ 1,600-40-2,400, and on revision of TRCA her entitlement was fixed at ₹ 4,290 in the revised scale ₹ 3,660-70-5,760. However, her TRCA was reduced to the slab of ₹ 2,745-50-4,245 and overpayment of ₹ 14,037 was directed to be recovered as per impugned Order, dated 21-12-2012 @ ₹ 1,800 per month with effect from January, 2013, but the same was without giving her any opportunity. Applicant came to know about revision of TRCA as per information obtained under RTI Act. Pursuant to the Order, dated 20-3-2014 passed by this Tribunal in her earlier O.A. No. 165 of 2014, Respondents considered the representation and rejected the same vide Order, dated 18-8-2014 intimating that in view of the undertaking given by her for recovery/adjustment of excess payment, no prior notice need be given. Being aggrieved, she has filed this OA for quashing of the impugned order, refixation of TRCA, refund of the amount already recovered and cost of this OA. Respondents resisted the OA contending that TRCA of all the GDSs was to be revised with reference to their existing workload as on 1-1-2006. In compliance of the instruction of the Directorate, TRCA of the employees concerned were fixed and arrears paid upon furnishing undertaking by them. Thereafter, verification of workload of the concerned GDS of the BOs was undertaken. In the instant case, the TRCA of the Applicant was revised taking her pre-revised TRCA as ₹ 1,800 in the scale ₹ 1,600-40-2,400 and fixed her TRCA at ₹ 4,290 in the revised scale ₹ 3,660-70-5,760 and, accordingly, arrears were paid but, subsequently, based on workload statistics submitted by concerned Sub Divisional Head, SSPOs, Puri Division calculated the revised TRCA of the Applicant taking her pre-revised TRCA as ₹ 1,770+30 (PP) in the scale of ₹ 1,280-35-1,980 and hence his TRCA was fixed in scale 2,745-50-4,245 at ₹ 4,045. The Applicant was found to be allowed excess payment of ₹ 14,037, which was sought to be recovered from her. Since the Applicant, before receiving arrears, had given undertaking for refund of excess payment, if any, there was no need to issue any notice or to give any show-cause before recovery of excess payment. As per the direction of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 165 of 2014, the representation of the Applicant was duly considered with reference to the instruction discussed above and having found no illegality in the decision, the same was rejected and reason of rejection was communicated. Learned Counsel for the Applicant relied on decision passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 469 of 2017 (Rabindra Nath Mahapatra v. Union of India and others). The said case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case since in the said case the workload of only 7 days of the year 2010 was taken into consideration for calculation of TRCA for the year 2005. Whereas in the present case, workload for the year 2005 was taken into account and TRCA was fixed. The submission of learned Counsel for the Applicant as per rules the records / documents are supposed to be weeded out every three years, thus there being no records to calculate the TRCA is not acceptable since no documents has been filed to show that the said documents have actually been weeded / destroyed. The rules cited are general guidelines to be followed, and without any documentary proof / official orders to show that such documents have been destroyed, this Tribunal cannot just refute the claim of the Respondents. Similarly the claim of the Applicant that the Mail Overseer had taken signature of the Applicant on a blank form and filled it up before submitting it to higher official also appears to be a figment of imagination or afterthought in absence of any documentary proof. It cannot be just assumed, without any documentary proof, that the Competent Authority has calculated the workload statistics without going through any official records. The said calculation sheet has signature of the Applicant giving her consent to the correctness. The contention of the Applicant that the workload statistics are not based on any official record and are full of factious figure, in absence of any documents to prove, looks like an afterthought. As regards to submission of learned Counsel for the Applicant for calling of documents for the said year, let it be clear that this is not the job of the Tribunal and since the present Applicant had herself given her consent to the calculated workload statistics and also she had furnished an undertaking before drawal of TRCA, she is bound by the undertaking for repaying / recovery of excess payment as per the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh reported in [ AIR 2016 SC 3523 ].