Allahabad High Court
Union Of India And 4 Others vs Central Administrative Tribunal And ... on 21 December, 2023
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:242025-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21153 of 2023 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 4 Others Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Tripathi Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
1. Heard Shri Piyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
2. Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in O.A. No. 1125 of 2019 (Om Prakash Sharma v. Union of India and 4 others). By that order, learned Tribunal has allowed the Original Application filed by the private respondents on the following terms:
"13. Since there was no fault on the part of the applicants, fixation was made by the department itself, recovery if any should have been made from the officer, who has made wrong fixation. Applicants who are not at fault, cannot be fastened with the liability of wrong fixation. Since no exception has been carve out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (supra), as has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, recovery process started for the overpayment from Group D employees are not sustainable.
14. Admittedly, in the instant case, applicant is a Group D employee and has not committed any fraud or misrepresentation in getting the TRCA. Now, applicant has retired on 19.11.2017 and after his retirement, recovering an amount of Rs 2000/- per month from December, 2017 i.e. after retirement of the applicant, even without issuing a show cause notice to him, is not justifiable
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present O.A. is allowed. Respondents are directed to disburse the amount as sanctioned vide order dated 23.4.2018 to the applicant and entire amount recovered from the applicant shall be refunded to him within a period of 03 months. If any amount is still to be recovered, same shall not be recovered.
16. There shall be no costs."
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the record, we find no good ground to interfere in exercise of our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to offer judicial review over the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons:
(i) The respondent was not a permanent but a temporary employee engaged as a Patrapal.
(ii) He was paid wages on the basis of work performance.
(iii) The amount sought to be withheld and thus recovered are Rs. 34,500/- being excess payment made to the severance allowance and Rs. 47,668/- being the excess ex-gratia payment made.
(iv) The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 is well settled and is being consistently applied without making any undue exceptions.
4. Accordingly, the petition lacks merits and dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to press the ground of prior undertaking, in appropriate case.
Order Date :- 21.12.2023
Shafique
(Vinod Diwakar, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.)