JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. 1. Heard, Sri Mallampalli Srinivas, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Venkata Rama Sarma, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. This writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) in OA No.643 of 2015, by which the OA filed by the applicant/respondent No.1 herein was disposed of with directions. 3. The applicant/respondent No.1 was initially appointed as a temporary typist in BZA Vijayawada Division in the pay scale of Rs.260-400 and was directed to report under the Railway Electrification Projects Organization. While working in the said organisation, he was promoted as Senior Typist and Head Typist purely on ad hoc basis on 17.06.2000 and 05.07.2007, respectively which was not based on seniority and other relevant criteria for promotion. He was repatriated to his parent division on 09.09.2008. His pay on repatriation continued as same as was on deputation. The respondents in OA (petitioners herein), based on Circular No.54/2014 dated 19.05.2014, that an ad hoc promotion granted in ex-cadre post did not entitle a Railway Servant to the protection of pay on repatriation in the parent division, revised his basic pay downwards from Rs.21,640/- to Rs.19,550/- withdrawing the pay earlier fixed. They also resorted to the recovery of Rs.3,07,063/- as an excess payment on this count, by an order dated 03.02.2015. Two installments of Rs.12,000/- p.m., were recovered for April and May, 2015 and leftover amount was recovered from the settlement dues as the applicant retired from service on superannuation w.e.f. 31.05.2015. 4. The applicant filed the OA No.643 of 2015, which was disposed of by an order dated 17.11.2016 with the following directions : "8. Having considered the submissions of both sides and the material on record and the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.1523/2015 and having regard to the fact that the applicant in the said OA and the applicant herein are similarly situated, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant on the basis of the decision communicated vide Annexure-A1 dated 16.05.2016 annexed to MA No.966/2016. 9. With regard to the recovery of Rs.3,07,063/- the respondents would contend that the judgment of the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih would not apply to the applicant. 9. With regard to the recovery of Rs.3,07,063/- the respondents would contend that the judgment of the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih would not apply to the applicant. This contention of the respondents is not acceptable as the Apex Court has held in Para 12(2) of the said judgment that recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within a year is impermissible. The recovery in the applicants case has admittedly taken place when there was less than three months for his retirement on superannuation. Hence he is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. In this view of the matter there shall also be a direction to the respondents to refund the amounts recovered from the applicant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. OA is disposed of with the above directions. With the disposal of the OA, MAs if any, stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs". 5. The Tribunal, thus with respect to grievance of reduction of the pay and re-fixation, issued a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant on the basis of the decision communicated vide Annexure-A1 dated 16.05.2015 annexed to MA No.966 of 2016 (Ex.P12) which reads as under : "With reference to the letter cited above reviewing and regulating the cases of the employees with multiple ad hoc promotions in Construction Organisation to avoid legal complications. The letter issued by CPO/SC Lr.No.SCR/PHQ/210/GS/E.Administration/SCD dated 16.02.2016." The ad hoc promotions made prior to 27.03.1998 (date of issue of RBE No.65.98) should be treated as "in order" and need not be reviewed." 6. With regard to the recovery of the Rs.3,07.063/- the Tribunal directed that such recovery would not be made and the amount already recovered shall be refunded to the applicant. The Tribunal took the view that the applicant was due to retire within three (3) months. He was in class 3 post. Consequently in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 , the recovery could not be made from the retired employees, or those employees who were due to retire within a year. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the applicant was repatriated to the parent division on 09.09.2008. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the applicant was repatriated to the parent division on 09.09.2008. His promotion on 17.06.2000 to the ex-cadre post of Head Typist in the Project Organization was an ad hoc promotion. After repatriation to the parent division to his cadre post, he would not be entitled for the pay protection of the ex-cadre post where he was granted ad hoc promotion. The fixation of pay after repatriation was not correctly done. The same was revised/re-fixed by an order dated 03.02.2015. An order for recovery was also passed. In view thereof, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The learned Central Government Counsel placed reliance in Union of India v. Bhanwar Lal Mundan, (2013) 12 SCC 433 , to contend that on repatriation to the parent cadre, the higher scale of pay for a post holding on deputation is not protected. 8. The learned Counsel for the applicant/respondent No.1 submits that the applicant was granted regular promotion for the post of Head Typist on 05.07.2007, while he was on deputation. His repatriation was made on 09.09.2008, after regular promotion. So, his pay could not be reduced. He further submits that the order of recovery and the recovery made out is illegal and contrary to the law laid down in Rafiq Masih's case (supra). 9. We have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. 10. On the first point of refixation of pay, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to consider the case of the applicant on the basis of the decision communicated vide Annexure-A1 dated 16.05.2016 annexed to MA No.966/2016 which has already been reproduced above. The issue appears to be that as per the learned Central Government Counsel at the time of repatriation of the applicant to parent division, he was working on ad hoc promotion on deputation. Whereas, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that while working on deputation, the applicant was granted regular promotion in the parent division. He has also referred to the reply statement filed by the present petitioner in OA No.643 of 2015 and also Para 4 of the writ petition to submit that the applicant was promoted w.e.f. 05.07.2007 as head typist. However, a perusal of Para 4 shows that the regular promotion was w.e.f. 05.07.2007 on non-fortuitous basis. 11. He has also referred to the reply statement filed by the present petitioner in OA No.643 of 2015 and also Para 4 of the writ petition to submit that the applicant was promoted w.e.f. 05.07.2007 as head typist. However, a perusal of Para 4 shows that the regular promotion was w.e.f. 05.07.2007 on non-fortuitous basis. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance in Bhanwar Lal Mundan's case (supra), Paras 18 to 23 of which read as under, to contend that on repatriation to parent department, the higher scale of pay on the post on deputation, shall not be protected; "18. We may note with profit that Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that the respondent was holding an ex-cadre post and it was the duty of the employer to ask him to participate in the selection in the promotional post, in the parent cadre. The respondent, being conscious of his position and to have the status, appeared in the selection process, got selected and joined the parent cadre. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that under a mistaken pression his pay was fixed in the promotional post in the parent cadre as a consequence of which he got more than the promotees in his batch and, hence, the same was required to be rectified and the employer was within its right to do so. 19. It is not in dispute that the respondent was sent on deputation and his lien in the parent department continued and hence, it was obligatory on the part of the authorities in the parent department to intimate him when the selection process for the higher post was undertaken as he had already come within the zone of consideration. In this context, we may refer with profit to the authority in D.M. Bharati v. L.M. Sud and others, wherein the Court was dealing with a case whether the employee had got a promotion in the department to which he was sent on deputation. While considering the effect of the said promotion after repatriation the Court observed thus : "that the appellant's promotion as junior draftsman and proposed promotion as Surveyor-cum-Draftsman in the Town Planning Establishment cannot confer any rights on him in his parent department. While considering the effect of the said promotion after repatriation the Court observed thus : "that the appellant's promotion as junior draftsman and proposed promotion as Surveyor-cum-Draftsman in the Town Planning Establishment cannot confer any rights on him in his parent department. When he left the Municipal Corporation and joined the Town Planning Establishment he was a tracer and he can go back to the Estate Department or any other department of the Municipal Corporation only to his original post i.e., as tracer, subject to the modification that, if in the meantime he had qualified for promotion to a higher post, that benefit cannot be denied to him." Thus, the repatriation has to be to the original post and benefit of promotion in the department to which an employee is deputed is of no consequence subject to his entitlement of status otherwise available in the parent department. 20. In Puranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, it has been held that when a deputationist is repatriated he cannot claim promotions in the parent department on the basis on officiation in a higher post in the borrower organization. 21. In State of Punjab and others v. Inder Singh and others, the learned Judges elaborately adverted to the concept of deputation and the right of a deputationist and in that context opined thus : "The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognised meaning "Deputation" has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word "deputation" is of no help. In simple words "deputation" means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules." 22. In the case at hand, as stated earlier, the respondent was getting higher scale of pay in the post while he was holding a particular post as a deputationist. In the case at hand, as stated earlier, the respondent was getting higher scale of pay in the post while he was holding a particular post as a deputationist. After his repatriation to the parent cadre on selection to a higher post he was given higher scale of pay as it was fixed keeping in view the pay scale drawn by him while he was working in the ex-cadre post. Such fixation of pay, needless to say, was erroneous and, therefore, the authorities were within their domain to rectify the same. Thus analysed, the irresistible conclusion is that the Tribunal and the High Court have fallen into error by opining that the respondent would be entitled to get the pension on the basis of the pay drawn by him before his retirement. 23. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part and the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court are set aside directing fixation of pension on the base of pay drawn by the respondent. However, as conceded to by Mr. Singh, there shall be no recovery from the excess amount paid to the respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. The law is well settled on pay fixation of a deputationist while coming back to the parent department or division, as in the case of Bhanwar Lal Mundan's case (supra). The deputationist on being repatriated to parent department or division, based on holding higher post or higher pay scale, cannot claim the same in the parent department/division. But, if in the meantime, the deputationist has earned promotion or higher scale in the parent department as per the rules, he cannot be denied the same. 13. Considering the aforesaid, but, without making any observation on this aspect to meet the ends of justice, we provide that while considering the case of the applicant pursuant to the direction, as per Para 8 of the judgment of the Tribunal, the petitioners shall also consider this aspect as to whether the applicant was granted regular promotion w.e.f. 05.07.2007 and if it was so, its effect on his pay fixation and with effect from what date and accordingly, they will pass appropriate orders on such aspect. 14. 14. Coming to the second point, so far as the recovery part is concerned, it could not be disputed that the applicant was in Group C post and the order for recovery was passed within three months of his retirement. 15. It is apt to refer Para 18 of the judgment in Rafiq Masih's case (supra), which reads as under : "18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law : (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (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." 16. Consequently, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal on this second aspect as well. The Tribunal has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra). 17. In Bhanwar Lal Mundan's case (supra), also, on the point of recovery the Hon'ble Apex Court directed that there shall be no recovery from the excess amount paid to the respondent therein. 18. The order of the Tribunal calls for no interference. The writ petition lacks merit. 19. With the observations made above, this writ petition is dismissed. 20. 17. In Bhanwar Lal Mundan's case (supra), also, on the point of recovery the Hon'ble Apex Court directed that there shall be no recovery from the excess amount paid to the respondent therein. 18. The order of the Tribunal calls for no interference. The writ petition lacks merit. 19. With the observations made above, this writ petition is dismissed. 20. It is needless to say that the interim order dated 28.04.2017, passed in the present writ petition, granting interim suspension of the order of the Tribunal, on dismissal of this writ petition, merged into the final order. 21. Considering that the respondent No.1 has retired long back, the petitioners shall expedite the matter. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in this case shall stand closed.