Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
V K Chaurasia vs U O I And Ors on 8 May, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2889/2013 V.K. Chaurasia vs. Union of India & Ors. DATE : 08/05/2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SMT. MEENA V. GOMBER Mr.P.N. Jatti, for petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This writ petition is directed against impugned order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench dated 6th April, 2011, whereby original application filed by the petitioner for refund of amount of Rs.10,878/-, has been dismissed.
3. The pay of the petitioner was stepped up vide order dated 8th December, 2006. Subsequently, the same was ordered to be recovered and consequently a letter dated 17th September, 2007 was written to the petitioner to deposit the amount. The petitioner initially gave undertaking that he will refund/return the excess payment. He also wrote in the undertaking that he will have no objection, if recovery of excess amount is made from his pension. Subsequently, the petitioner deposited the said amount. The petitioner, thereafter, filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal for refund of the amount, which has been dismissed.
4. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that he was not given any notice before recovery of the amount. He also submitted that pay of the petitioner was rightly stepped up, therefore, amount has wrong been recovered from the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that order of Central Administrative Tribunal is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the Tribunal for rejecting the original application of the petitioner.
6. The Tribunal has considered the case of petitioner in detail in para Nos.4 and 5 of the judgment, which are reproduced, as under :-
4.Having heard the rival submissions of the respective parties, the applicant does not dispute the fact that he has retired after attaining the age of superannuation and the amount of Rs.10878/- has been deposited by him. The reason for depositing the said amount, as alleged by the applicant that the same has not been mentioned while passing the impugned order Ann.A/1 dated 17.9.2007, was assigned by the respondents in their reply that while the applicant was placed under TBOP w.e.f. 17.10.1993 he was given opportunity to exercise his option for fixation of pay but the applicant has not availed the same and has applied for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 17.8.2005 and his voluntary retirement was accepted by the competent authority and accordingly he was relieved on 17.8.2005. After his retirement applicant submitted an application dated 24.3.2006 to the Postmaster General (SR) Ajmer (respondent No.3) with the request to allow stepping up of pay at par with his junior. The respondent No.3 after considering the grievance of the applicant allowed stepping up of pay to the applicant vide memo dated 8.12.2006 from the stage of Rs. 1150/- to Rs. 1180/- w.e.f. 1.5.1986 in the scale of Rs. 975-1660, which was the date of increment of Shri A.K. Sharma, Sorting Assistant who was junior to him and directed to obtain an undertaking from the applicant before effecting payment of arrears of pay and allowance. As the applicant did not exercise any option about pay fixation, therefore, pay fixation has been re-checked and on rechecking the case of fixation of the applicant, it was found that the applicant did not exercise any option for pay fixation at the time of promotion but erroneously his pay was fixed presuming as if he has given option for fixation of pay w.e.f 1.5.1994 and thus there was excess payment of arrears to the applicant.
5.As discussed hereinabove, before releasing the said arrear, an undertaking was taken from the applicant that in case excess payment, if any, found to have been made to the applicant, he will refund the same and upon re-checking he was asked to deposit the excess payment vide Ann.A/1 dated 17.9.2007 and in view of the undertaking given by the applicant vide Ann.R/1, the applicant has deposited the same. The refund can only be made to the applicant if the mistake is committed by the Government in wrong fixation of pay and the excess payment can be recovered if such mistake is on the part of the employee concerned. Here in the instant case the applicant has not exercised option and under the impression that he has exercised option, excess payment has been made. As such, the excess payment made has rightly been recovered vide impugned order dated 17.9.2007(Ann.A/1).
7. We have examined the reasons assigned by Tribunal for rejecting the original application in the above paras. In our view, the reasons assigned by learned Tribunal for rejecting the original application are absolutely just and legal and no interference in the same is called for by this Court.
8. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
(Dr. MEENA V. GOMBER),J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. Sanjay S.No.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Sanjay Solanki JUNIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT.