Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Manas Kilikdar vs S E Railway on 2 July, 2018
iftf\
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CALCUTTA BENCH
No. OA. 350/1 24812016 Date of Order: 02.07.2018
Present: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
Manas Kilikdar, son of late Mumud Baran
Kilikdar, aged about 44 years, working as
Instructor (Computer) STC, Kharagpur,
Residing at Malaneha Word No. 14, Post
Office- Nimpura, District- Paschim
Midnapur, Pin- 721 304, West Bengal.
Applicant.
-versus-
1. The Union of India, through the General
Manager, SouhEastern Railway, Garden
Reac
South Eastern
ivvay, Garden
0)
(Jhe South
1c- Kharagpur,
.j/Pin- 721301.
Respondents.
For the Applicant Mr. A. Chakraborty, Counsel
For the Respondents Ms. G. Roy, Counsel
ORDER (Oral)
Per Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member:
Heard both.
2. Aggrieved with a recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,08, 218/-, the applicant in this O.A. has sought for, the following reliefs:
'8(1) Memo no. SER/P-KGP/Staff/227/Faculty/Trg Allowance dated 12.01.2016 issued by Workshop Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur cannot be sustained in the eye of law and same may be quashed.
I 2 (II) An order do issue directing the respondents to grant the grade pay of Rs. 4200/- on the pay of Rs. 14190/-p.m. against the existing vacancy."
3. Applicant has relied upon the decision in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih, CA No.11527 of 2014 where the Hon'ble Apex Court propounded that "orders passed by the employer seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover".
xxxxxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXX "interferance would be called for, only in such cases where, it would be iniqwtous to recover the payment made."
Hon'ble Court ruled that recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess before the order of recovery is / fl CI issued is impermissible. / ~1% A<TN -11~.
in the instant case tte'ec JeeJo as excess payments were
k recovery.
made since September, 20 0 5
0
Since recovery of F of the applicant has been
ordered without any show c s and in terms of the decision of
Rafiq Masih supra which propounds of recovery from employees, when
the excess payment has been made 'for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued" would be impermissible, the respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount to the applicant forthwith with liberty to act in accordance with law, if law permits.
Accordingly, OA is disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) (Bidisha Ban,rjee)
Member (A) Member (J)
SE