Ajai Kumar vs M/O Human Resource Development on 24 February, 2021
10. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited the judgment of Hon'ble
High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Om Prakash Verma vs. State of M.P.
and others, 2016 SCC OnLine MP 7470; Vijay Shankar Trivedi vs. State
of M.P. and others, 2018(3) MPLJ 453, judgment of Hon'ble High Court
of Rajasthan in Civil Special Appeal (W) No.329/2004, decided on
24.11.2016 (Mohammed Yusuf vs. Maharana Pratap Agriculture &
Technology University, Udaipur); order of Ernakulam Bench of this
Tribunal in the case of Parukutty Ammal vs. Financial Advisor & Chief
Accounts Officer (Pension), Southern Railways, Chennai & Ors, 2016
SCC OnLine CAT 3969 to argue that even though an undertaking has been
Page 9 of 10
10 OA No.200/338/2020
furnished by the applicant, the recovery is impermissible as per the law
noticed above. We find that the issue in the cases relied upon by learned
counsel for the applicant was regarding wrong pay fixation of the employee
and recovery made thereof where undertaking was given by the employee
for refund of overpayments on account of incorrect fixation, whereas in the
instant case, it has not been disputed by the applicant that he was paid
Rs.414691/- towards commutation money, which was to be adjusted from
the basic pension of the applicant and as per the undertaking (Annexure R-2
with the reply filed by respondents-Bank), any amount credited in his
account for which the applicant is not entitled, shall be refunded by him.