In Re: - Union Of India & Ors vs Uma Sankar Ghosh on 30 March, 2016

[Cites 1, Cited by 9]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

In Re: - Union Of India & Ors vs Uma Sankar Ghosh on 30 March, 2016

Bench: Nishita Mhatre

                                                1

       30.03.16
       Item No.04
       Court No.17
      Krishnendu

                           W.P.C.T. No. 54 of 2016

In re: An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed on 071.03.2016;

                And
In re: - Union of India & Ors.
              -versus -
        Uma Sankar Ghosh

Mr. Partha Sarathi Biswas
Mr. Sajal Kanti Bhattacharyya
                        For the Petitioners

Sk. S.Rahaman
Mr.N. Roy
                       For the Respondent

The grievance of the Union of India and its officers is that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, by its order of 5th February, 2015 has incorrectly directed the restoration of the basic pay of the Respondent employee to `27,080/- from `25,170/-. It is also the contention of the Petitioners that the Tribunal ought not to have directed that the amount, which was paid in excess and recovered from the employee, should be refunded to him.

Mr. Biswas, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, states very fairly that the Petitioners are not challenging that part of the order where the Tribunal has directed the Petitioners to refund the amount recovered from the Respondent. He points out that after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Punjab & Ors. -vs- Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training, has issued an Office Memorandum on 2nd March, 2016 indicating that the aforesaid judgment should 2 strictly be followed and the waiver of the recovery should be allowed with the express approval of the Department of Expenditure.

In view of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, there is no need to consider whether the refund, directed, is proper.

However, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submits that the basic pay has incorrectly been restored to `27,080/- by the Tribunal. He contends that the ad hoc promotion can be granted only for a year in view of the D.O.P&T. Circular issued in 1998. This ad hoc promotion can be extended only with the express approval of the D.O.P&T. He points out that no such approval had been granted by the D.O.P&T. despite which the Petitioners had incorrectly paid the higher salary to the Respondent and fixed the basic pay as `27,080/-.

There is no material on record to indicate that the Department of Posts in which the Respondent was working had ever consulted the Department of Personnel & Training in order to ascertain whether the Respondent should be continued in the promotional post on an ad hoc basis after a period of one year had elapsed. There is no material to suggest that the D.O.P&T. had disallowed the continuance of the Respondent in the promotional post on an ad hoc basis.

In these circumstances, we see no reason to differ from the view taken by the Tribunal. All aspects of the matter have been considered by the Tribunal and, therefore, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. 3 (Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Tapash Mookherjee, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)