Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Vijay Pal Singh vs D/O Post on 21 December, 2023
O.A./1225/2018
(Reserved on 14.12.2023)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 21st day of December, 2023
Hon'ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Original Application No.330/1225/2018
Vijay Pal Singh, aged about 62 years, son of Shri Popi Singh, retired
Postman, Head Post Office Moradabad, R/o Village and Post Raipur
Kalan Via Bahjoi, District - Sambhal (U.P.).
. . .Applicant
By Advocate : Shri S K Kushwaha
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication
and I.T., Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. Director of Accounts (Postal) U.P. Circle, Sector-D, Aliganj,
Lucknow - 226024.
3. Post Master General, Bareilly Region, Bareilly.
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Moradabad Division,
Moradabad.
5. Senior Post Master, Moradabad Head Post Office, Moradabad.
. . .Respondents
By Advocate : Shri Vidyapati Tripathi
ORDER
( By Hon'ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member(Administrative) This Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, claiming relief to quash the impugned Page 1 of 5 O.A./1225/2018 order dated 22.03.2018 and direct the respondents to refund the recovered/adjusted amount of Rs. 71,627/- with 18% compound interest. Prayer has also been made to issue any other order which this Tribunal may deem fit and proper and also award cost.
2. The brief facts of the case of the applicant are that on 13.03.2018, illegal recovery/adjustment of Rs. 71,627/- from DCRG amount against the provisionally sanctioned amount of D.C.R.G. Rs. 2,67,483/- had been made by the respondents and till the date of retirement no information had been given by any of the respondents and while issuing the sanctioned order of provisional pension and provisional gratuity, an amount of Rs. 71,627/- had been deducted from gratuity and deposited through U.C.R. even without notice to the applicant. It is also not understandable, how the amount of Rs. 71,627/- had been withdrawn from the sanctioned amount from provisional gratuity and further deposited by whom in U.C.R. and further till the representation, no final sanction and payment of G.P.F. has been communicated to the applicant. Recovery/adjustment from the applicant is directly violative of condition no. (i) and (ii) of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as DOP&T Circular dated 02.03.2016. The action of the respondents to adjust suo moto an amount of Rs. 71,627/- through U.C.R. without intimation to the applicant was against the principles of natural justice, illegal, arbitrary and not understandable in the eyes of law. No information had been given to the applicant before making adjustment from the amount of DCRG.
Page 2 of 5
O.A./1225/2018
3. Respondents have filed counter affidavit where they also did not deny the facts that no opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant before they have unilaterally recovered and adjusted the said amount of alleged excess payment of GPF from DCRG due amount to the applicant.
4. The applicant also filed his rejoinder wherein he reiterates his facts as in the OA.
5. The case came up for final hearing on 14.12.2023, Shri S K Kushwaha, counsel for the applicant and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, counsel for the respondents were present and heard.
6. I have carefully gone through the entire record and considered the rival contentions advanced by the counsels for the parties.
7. From the record, it appears that the applicant emphasized on the fact that he was not intimated and heard before the impugned order of deduction and its implication in terms of violation of the principles of natural justice. He further relies on the case law of State of Punjab & others vs. Rafiq Masih [2014(3) SLJ 136 (SC)] passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in case of Kashi Prasad Shukla vs. State of U.P. & Ors. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13368 of 2009, passed on 17.12.2020 and in case of Bhagwani Yadav vs. State of U.P. & 5 others. in Special Appeal No. 936 of 2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and in Writ A No. 14096 of 2007 in case of Bare Lal Page 3 of 5 O.A./1225/2018 Upadhyay vs. State of U.P & Others. passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad.
8. Whereas, the respondents relied on the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, decided on 29.07.2006 where the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that "recovery should be made in reasonable installments. We direct that the recovery be made in equated monthly installments spread over a period of two years." They further rely on the order of the Hon'ble High Court of in case of Kashi Yadav vs. State of MP & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 13699 of 2010 wherein the Hon'ble High Court had held that Rafiq Massih case is not applicable in case of recovery of certain classes of employees not in the certain cases of deduction from GPF at the time of retirement etc.
9. As on the preliminary issue of not being heard before embarking on recovery, the authorities also agree that they have not heard the applicant on the said point. Hence, in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other court rulings the respondents must hear the applicant before deciding the said case and to that extent, their impugned order is set aside and they are again given three months' time to pass a speaking and considered order after giving opportunity of being heard to the applicant. To that extent, I pass following orders:-
The present Original Application is partly allowed and impugned order dated 22.03.2018 (A1) is set aside and the respondent competent to pass order is directed to give notice of recovery to the applicant and after hearing him pass a reasoned and Page 4 of 5 O.A./1225/2018 speaking order and take appropriate action thereon after hearing the applicant in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court rulings (supra) within three months.
10. All associated M.As. also stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(Dr. Sanjiv Kumar) Member-A /Priyadarshana/ Page 5 of 5