Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Gyan Das vs North Eastern Railway on 29 May, 2023
Page 1 of 4
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
Original Application No. 332/00179/2023
This the 29th day of May, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-J
Gyan Das, aged about 54 years S/O Brij Lal, working as
Track Maintainer under The Senior Section Engineer,
P&Way, NER Sitapur Resident of - 61/EB Railway Colony
Sitapur, Permanent Address-Village-Amrakoli Post-
Manetapur District-Santkabir Nagar.
........Applicant.
By Advocate: Shri S.K. Singh.
Versus.
1. The Union of India through the General Manager,
North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager North Eastern
Railway, Lucknow.
3. The Divisional Engineer III, NE Railway, Hazratganj,
Lucknow.
4. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, NE Railway,
Sitapur.
5. The Senior Section Engineer, P&Way, NER, Sitapur.
6. The Sachiv, N.E. and E.C. Rly. Employees Multi
State Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd. Gorakhpur.
.....Respondents.
By Advocate: Ms.Prayagmati Gupta.
O R D E R (ORAL)
Heard, the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
2. Applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i). To set aside the impugned order dated 18.03.23 passed by the opposite party No.4.Page 2 of 4
(ii). Issue order or orders or directions to the opposite parties to stop the recovery of the loan amount taken by Santosh Kumar Yadav S/o Ram Nath Exe-track maintainer from the salary of applicant as the same is being recovered illegally without any order and also direct to refund the amount already deducted from the salary of the applicant with interest.
(iii). Issue any other order or orders or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.
(iv). To award the costs of Original Application in favour of the applicant."
3. Tersely put, the case of the applicant is that one Santosh Kumar Yadav took loan from the N.E. and E.C. Railway Employees' Multi State Primary Co-operative Bank Limited, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred as Bank) to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. The aforesaid Santosh Kumar Yadav was removed from service. After removal from service Bank wrote a letter for deduction of installment from the salary of the applicant without approaching Principal debtor Santosh Kumar Yadav.
Hence, this OA.
4. Respondents have filed objections with regard to the maintainability of the OA, stating therein, that the case is not covered under Section 3 (q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which defines service matters. The applicant is surety for the loan taken by one Santosh Kumar Yadav. There is no law to secure the loan from the Principal debtor first, thereafter, approach the surety. OA is not maintainable and should be dismissed at admission stage, itself.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the alleged loan amount taken by Santosh Kumar Yadav cannot Page 3 of 4 be recovered from the salary of the applicant. Further submitted that it is a service matter, hence, OA is maintainable.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the aforesaid submission and argued that the case is not covered under Section 3 (q) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Further submitted that liability of the applicant to pay the installment of the loan emanates from the contract of guarantee. The OA deserves to be dismissed at admission stage itself.
7. Section 3 (q), which defines the service matter are being quoted below for ready reference:-
"(q) Service matters", in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or, as the case may be, of any corporation [or society] owned or controlled by the Government, as respects-
(i). Remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits;
(ii). Tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation;
(iii). Leave of any kind;
(iv). Disciplinary matters; or
(v). any other matter whatsoever."
8. From the perusal of Section 3 (q), it is evident that present matter neither relates to remuneration, pension and other retirement benefits nor tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement, superannuation, Leave of any kind, Disciplinary matters or any other matter whatsoever. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the present matter does not fall under the category of service matters as defined under Section 3 (q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Page 4 of 49. The liability of the applicant emanates from the contract of guarantee as provided at page 6 of the contract of loan, which is part of the preliminary objection.
10. The applicant is surety of the loan taken by Santosh Kumar Yadav. Under Contract Act, it has been provided that liability of surety is co-extensive with the liability of principal debtor and the liability of the principal debtor and surety is joint and several. Hence, it is not obligatory for the bank to approach first to the Principal debtor i.e. Santosh Kumar Yadav. Bank can directly recover loan from the surety. The applicant can recover the amount from the Principal debtor, Santosh Kumar Yadav by filing a civil suit.
11. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that this OA is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed at admission stage itself.
12. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. Miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (J) Ak/-