Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt. Jyotsna Fernandez W/O Sri James ... vs The Union Of India Through Its General ... on 7 September, 2012
(RESERVED) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD (THIS THE 7th DAY OF September 2012) PRESENT: HONBLE MR. D. C. LAKHA, MEMBER-A ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1068 OF 2009 (U/s, 19 Administrative Tribunals Act.1985) Smt. Jyotsna Fernandez W/o Sri James Fernandez R/o Mayur Vihar East Basaratpur, P.O.- Basaratpur, District-Gorakhpur. . . . . . . . .Applicant By Advocate: Shri S.K. Singh. Versus 1. The Union of India through its General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. 2. The General Manager (Personnel), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. 3. The Chief Personnel Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. 4. The Principal, N.E. Railway Girls Inter College Gorakhpur. . . . . . . . . . Respondents By Advocate: Shri P.N. Rai. O R D E R
(DELIVERED BY:- HONBLE MR. D.C. LAKHA, MEMBER-A) This OA has been preferred to seek the following reliefs:-
(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make the payment of Rs. 57155/- with interest.
(b) to award the damages and compensation to the applicant for mental agony and harassment for the negligence made by the respondents.
2. Instant O.A. has been filed praying for commanding the respondents to make the payment of RS. 57,155 with interest and also for awarding the damages and compensation.
3. Facts in brief, as stated in the O.A. are that the applicant, Assistant Mistress in Mixed Primary School, Gorakhpur, on the date of her superannuation on 30.4.2004 was served with the order describing payment of benefits showing Rs. 75,000/- recovered from the same on account of overpayment made to the applicant. On representation made by the applicant she was sent a cheque dated 22.7.2004 for Rs. 17,845/- and Rs. 57,155/- was withheld (A-3). The applicant made various representations followed by reminders for payment of Rs.57,155/-, but in vain. On 30.11.2006, a calculation sheet was provided to the applicant for over payment from 1.1.1973 to 30.4.2004 shown to be paid in excess.. Placing reliance in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. State Public Services Tribunal and another (2004) 1 UPLBEC 127, Nand Kishore Sharma and others vs. State of Bihar and others (1995, Suppl. (3) SCC 722 and State of Karnataka and another vs. Mangalore University Non Teaching Employees and another (2002) 3 SCC 302 of Hon. Supreme Court and Hon. Hon. High Court it is stated that since the applicant has not misrepresented any fact nor played any fraud for over payment and therefore, the amount paid in excess, not on account of misrepresentation of fact or fault of the applicant, cannot be recovered and that too without giving opportunity of hearing. Hence, the O.A.
4. On notice, Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, in which the averments made in the O.A. have been denied. It has further been stated that on the date of superannuation of the applicant, the Accounts office while verifying /vetting the services of the applicant detected that certain amount was overpaid to applicant and an amount of Rs. 75,000/- was deducted before settlement dues were paid. It is further submitted that on the representation of the applicant the overpayment was rechecked and found that Rs. 17,845/- which was payable to the applicant was paid to her.
5. Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed by the applicant reiterating the averments made in the O.A. and denying the contentions made in the Counter affidavit.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused entire record. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that even if excess payment was made to the applicant due to wrong fixation in which he had no role to play, such excess payment cannot be recovered from the applicant. In support of this point, he has submitted the following judgments:-
1. Smt. Uma Ray vs. State of W.B. and others (Kolkata High Court) W.P. no. 5423 (W) of 2012 decided on 31.7.2012.
2. Yogeshwar Prasad vs. National Inst. Edu. Planning and Admn. (2010SCALE-11-379) of Hon. Supreme Court.
3. Union of India and ors. vs. R. Vasudeva Murthy & ors. (2010 AIR SCW 4675), OF Hon. Supreme Court.
4. Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar (2009-Scale-1-36) of Hon. Supreme Court.
5. State of Bihar vs. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad ( 2009-KERLT-Suppl 655) of Hon. Supreme Court.
6. Purshottam Lal Das vs. State of Bihar (2006 SCC-11-492) of Hon. Supreme Court.
7. Col. (Retd) B.J. Akkara vs. Govt. of India (2006 SCC-11-709) OF Hon. Supreme Court.
8. Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana (1995) Suppl SCC 18 OF Hon. Supreme Court.
9. Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India (1994) 2 SCC 521 OF Hon. Supreme Court.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued stressing that Accounts office while verifying /vetting the services of the applicant detected that certain amount was overpaid to applicant and therefore the amount was deducted from his retrial dues and that the amount paid in excess has rightly been recovered, as the mistake committed by the respondents in fixation of pay or payment of salary could be rectified as held in the case of V.K. Upadhyaya vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2009) UPLBEC 1918.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of record and catena of judgments as relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that the order of recovery of Rs. 57,155/- is not sustainable. O.A. deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to make payment of Rs. 57,155/- to the applicant within a period of one month. No costs.
Member(A) s.a.
??
??
??
??
4