Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. While entertaining the Original Application, the tribunal vide order dated 24.05.2017, directed that "in the meantime, no further deduction in the allowance will he made in case of the applicant". But pursuant to notice, the opposite parties filed their counter affidavit stating that the petitioner while working as GDS Packer at IOCL Paradeep NDT SO, vide his representation dated 30.03.2012, he had applied for request transfer from IOCL Paradeep NDT SO to Sangrampur/ Titira/ Somepur Benahar/ Goda B.O. under limited transfer facility. The CPMG, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar approved the petitioner's transfer to GDS MD, Titira BO on account with Borikina SO vide Circle Office Memo dated 08.04.2013 with one of the specific conditions that "TRCA of the new post to which the GDS is transferred shall be fixed as per the instruction contained in Directorate Letter No. 19-10/2004-GDS dated 17.07.2006 under Para 3(iii)". The petitioner vide his declaration dated 23.04.2013 accepted the terms and conditions for transfer as mentioned in the memo of Circle Office. As per Directorate Letter dated 17.07.2006, on request transfer to a new post, a GDS cannot have any claim for protection of his/her TRCA drawn in the old post. The petitioner was drawing TRCA @ Rs.5045/- in the old post and his TRCA should have been fixed at the minimum of the TRCA slab in the new post depending upon the workload of the said post, i.e. at Rs.4220/- but inadvertently, his TRCA was drawn as per his basic pay in the old pay for which excess amount of TRCA was paid to him from May, 2013 till March, 2017. When the said fact came to the notice of the authority, the excess amount of Rs.1485/- was deducted from his salary for the month of April, 2017 and the excess TRCA already drawn inadvertently from June, 2013 to March, 2017 was due to be recovered from the petitioner. Since the TRCA was regulated as per rules and as per the declaration of the petitioner, therefore, the action taken is well justified.

6. The sole question rests for consideration of this Court is that if the benefit extended to the person concerned is subsequently found that the same was extended by mistake, whether the authorities have got the power to rectify their mistake or not.

7. In order to find out the correctness of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner vis-à-vis learned counsel for the opposite parties, this Court perused the record and it is revealed that the benefit had been extended to the petitioner by mistake, which was subsequently noticed and the same was rectified. The petitioner's TRCA was required to be revised/re-fixed as per the Directorate letter dated 17.07.2006, due to his request transfer from IOCL, Paradeep NDT SO to Titira BO as well as due to his declaration, since the TRCA drawn in the old post cannot be protected in the new post. Although due to inadvertence the same was not done at the appropriate time, as and when the said fact came to the notice of the authorities, they initiated steps for revision/re-fixation of TRCA and consequent recovery.