Himachal Pradesh High Court
Posted As Post Master At vs Union Of India Through on 14 December, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 14th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 5940 of 2014
Between:-
PREM SINGH,
S/O SH. MAGNI RAM,
R/O VILL. & P.O. MALATH,
TEHSIL KUPVI VIA NERWA,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P., PRESENTLY
POSTED AS POST MASTER AT
POST OFFICE BRANCH MALATH,
TEHSIL KUPVI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
......PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NAVEEN K. BHARDWAJ,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
COMMUNICATION, DEPARTMENT
OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPH,
DAK BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG,
NEW DELHI-110011.
2. CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL,
H.P. CIRCLE, SHIMLA-171009.
3. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF
POST OFFICES, SHIMLA DIVISION,
SHIMLA-171001.
......RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. BALRAM SHARMA,
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA)
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:26:03 :::CIS
-2-
This petition coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble
Ms. Justice Sabina, passed the following:
.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of order dated 22nd April, 2014 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby original application filed by the petitioner was rejected.
2. Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the amount of TRCA towards arrears paid to the petitioner could not have been recovered by the respondents as the same had been paid to him in accordance with law.
3. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Solicitor General of India, has submitted that the petitioner could not have been paid the TRCA alongwith admissible dearness allowance for the period he had remained "off duty". Now, order dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure R-6) has been paid by the competent authority after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was working as Gramin Dak Sewak with the respondents from 26.02.1997 to 11.02.1998. Petitioner procured RPLI policies with ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:26:03 :::CIS -3- assured amount of Rs.50,000/- on 26.02.1997 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.02.1998 in the names of Nagi Devi, aged 72 years and Jati Ram, .
aged 80 years, respectively. Petitioner, with the help of Panchayat Secretary, Branch Postmaster Malat, prepared bogus date of birth certificates, showing age of the insured as 40 years and 28 years.
The insured were relatives of the petitioner. After the death of Jati Ram, petitioner submitted the claim of the said insured. When the r to fraud committed by the petitioner came to light, charge-sheet dated 08.12.1999 was issued against the petitioner. During inquiry, charges leveled against the petitioner were found proved and penalty was awarded to the petitioner to debar him for three years for promotion to group 'D' and Postman, vide order dated 30.06.2000 (Annexure R-1). Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was rejected, vide order dated 21.06.2001 (Annexure R-2). Petitioner preferred an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the same was dismissed, vide order dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure R-3). The writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Tribunal was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 17.12.2003 (Annexure R-4).
Petitioner was reinstated by the respondents on 02.09.2000.
Petitioner was entitled to be granted payment equal to 25% of his Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) alongwith admissible Dearness Allowance (DA), i.e. Rs.7,428/- for the whole period. The ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:26:03 :::CIS -4- said amount was not paid to the petitioner as he was "off duty".
Petitioner served a legal notice, claiming full salary for the period he .
had been put "off duty". The respondents presumed that the claim put forth by the petitioner was correct and erroneously paid him Rs.29,712/- for the "off duty" period. When the mistake committed by the respondents came to their notice that the amount could not have been paid to the petitioner as he had not been exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the excess amount paid to the petitioner was ordered to be recovered from his salary, in installments. The recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents were challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the said application was disposed of, vide order dated 08.09.2011 (Annexure R-5). Order of demand dated 04.01.2011 as well as order dated 15.11.2010, whereby arrears of TRCA were denied to the petitioner, were set aside as opportunity of hearing had been denied to the petitioner before passing of the said order. However, the respondents were granted liberty to revisit the relevant issue by the competent authority in accordance with rules and law.
Thereafter, order dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure R-6) was passed by the competent authority and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Vide impugned order dated 22.04.2014 (Annexure P-1), original application filed by the petitioner was ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:26:03 :::CIS -5- dismissed. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.
5. Thus, in the present case, the impugned order was .
passed by the competent authority in pursuance to the order dated 08.09.2011 (Annexure R-5) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. A perusal of the order dated 08.09.2011 reveals that the petitioner was granted personal hearing and all the facts were explained to him. Petitioner was duly explained the departmental ruling position as well as the decision with regard to the charge-
sheet served on him. Petitioner was told that recovery of Rs.11,029/-
was still pending against him. Petitioner also agreed that amount of Rs.11,029/- was outstanding against him, which had been paid to him towards TRCA arrears, but the petitioner had refused to refund the amount which had been erroneously paid to him.
6. Admittedly, petitioner had not been exonerated in the departmental proceedings. Rather, penalty had been awarded to the petitioner, i.e., to debar him for three years for promotion to group 'D' and Postman. It was only in case the petitioner had been exonerated in departmental proceedings, he would have been entitled to receive full admissible allowances for the period he had been put "off duty". However, now excess allowances for the "off duty" period have been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner after affording him an opportunity of hearing.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:26:03 :::CIS -6-7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for interference while exercising writ jurisdiction is made out. Hence, .
the writ petition is dismissed.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
( Mohammad Rafiq )
Chief Justice
( Sabina )
r Judge
December 14, 2021
( Himalvi)
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:26:03 :::CIS