Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Yudhister Alimchandani vs Nuclear Power Corp. Of India Ltd. And Ors ... on 25 September, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:40564-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 418/2014
Yudhister Alimchandani S/o Shri Dayaram, aged about 57 years,
R/o Anudeep Colony PO Bhabhanagar, Rawatbhata via Kota,
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., through its
Chairman and Managing Director, Vikram Sarabhai Bhawan,
Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai.
2. Director (HR), Vikram Sarabhai Bhawan, Anushakti Nagar,
Mumbai.
3. Site Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., RR
Site, Anushakti, Rawatbhata, Rajasthan.
4. General Manager (HR), R.R. Site, Nuclear Power
Corporation of India Ltd., PO Anushakti, Rawatbhata,
Rajasthan.
5. Senior Manager (HR), R.R. Site, Nuclear Power Corporation
of India Ltd., PO Anushakti, Rawatbhata, Rajasthan.
6. Manager (HR), R.R. Site, Nuclear Power Corporation of
India Ltd., PO Anushakti, Rawatbhata, Rajasthan.
7. Deputy Manager (HR), R.R. Site, Nuclear Power
Corporation of India Ltd., PO Anushakti, Rawatbhata,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Rathore
Ms.Saumya Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order 25/09/2024 Per, Kuldeep Mathur, J.
By way of filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the learned Single Judge, the (Downloaded on 01/10/2024 at 09:49:28 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:40564-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-418/2014] appellant assailed the validity and propriety of the order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the Dy. Manager (HR), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) seeking to recover a sum of Rs.1,32,466/- which according to the respondent- NPCIL was wrongly availed by the appellant- Yudhister Alimchandani who is a retired employee of NPCIL under the Nuclear Power Corporation Power Limited (Hostel Subsidy) Scheme, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Hostel Subsidy Scheme, 1991'). The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 03.02.2014, which has been assailed in the present intra-court appeal.
2. It is not in dispute before this Court that the appellant while working as Assistant Grade-II availed the benefit of subsidy for his fourth children when he was pursuing the course of B. Pharma during the period from 2008 to 2012, as per Clause 5.1.5 of the Hostel Subsidy Scheme, 1991. The relevant clause is reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:-
"5.1.5 Hostel Subsidy shall be admissible to an employee in respect of not more than three children at any time, born upto 31.12.1987 and shall be restricted to two children at any time born thereafter, provided that the total number of children in respect of whom the subsidy is drawn shall not exceed three children born upto 31.12.1987 and two children born thereafter."
3. The respondent-employer issued an order dated 13.02.2013 indicating therein that the appellant had already availed subsidy/concession in conformity with the provisions of Hostel Subsidy Scheme, 1991 for his first three children and therefore, the benefit extended to him under the said scheme qua fourth (Downloaded on 01/10/2024 at 09:49:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:40564-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-418/2014] child was not admissible. According to the respondents in view of Clause 5.1.5 reproduced supra, three children born before 31.12.1987 were separately entitled to the said Subsidy Scheme, 1991, whereas if the number of children exceeds as a result of second birth resulting in twins or multiple births, this restriction shall not be applicable. In the present case, the appellant had availed subsidy/concession for his fourth child, who was admittedly born after 31.12.1987 and therefore, no subsidy/concession for pursuing the course of B. Pharma during the period running from 2008 to 2012 was available and therefore, the subsidy amount granted to the appellant in this regard is likely to be recovered.
4. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.08.2014, after hearing the appellant herein, was pleased to pass the following interim order:-
"Having considered the facts stated, especially the fact that the appellant has claimed subsidy only for two children, we deem it appropriate to restrain the respondents from effecting any recovery in relation to the hostel subsidy from the appellant till further orders."
5. Having gone through the material available on record, we find that no show cause notice was ever issued to the appellant prior to issuing the impugned recovery notice dated 13.02.2013. Further, it is not the case of the respondent that the payment made to the appellant under the Hostel Subsidy Scheme, 1991 was made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant. The impugned recovery notice has been issued after about 23 years from the date when the alleged excess amount was paid to the appellant owing to inadvertent mistake having (Downloaded on 01/10/2024 at 09:49:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:40564-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-418/2014] being committed by the respondents themselves. Thus, the respondents are not entitled to effect recovery of the excess sum paid to the appellant.
6. As a result, the present Special Appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 03.02.2014 passed by the learned Single Bench in the writ petition is reversed.
7. The recovery notice dated 13.02.2013 is also quashed and set aside. The respondents are restrained from effecting recovery of any excess amount paid to the appellant, in pursuance of the recovery notice dated 13.02.2013 from the retiral benefits of the appellant.
7. No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J 21-himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 01/10/2024 at 09:49:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)