Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Union Of India Thru' D.R.M. N.E. Rly. & Another v. Registrar C.A.T. & Another - WRIT - A No. 32971 of 2002 [2003] RD-AH 213 (16 July 2003)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32971 of 2002

Union of India & Anr. ......... Petitioner


Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal,

Allahabad & Anr. ......... Respondents

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. D.P. Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal dated 21st May, 2002, by which the claim of the respondent no.2 has partly been allowed and the Department has been restrained from making recovery of the amount paid in excess to his salary.

Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent-employee was initially selected as the Inspector of Works, Grade-III in the Railway Service Commission. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Inspector of Works, Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs. 550-750/-. He made an application on 01.02.1984 to the authorities that he may be accommodated as an Inspector of Works, Grade-III in different Railway Zone and he was willing to forego his claim of the salary of Inspector of Works, Grade-II. Vide order dated 19.01.1985, petitioner was transferred to Gorakhpur on the post of Inspector of Works, Grade-III, i.e. lower grade and on a lower pay scale. He submitted the Last Pay Certificate according to the pay last drawn as Inspector of Works, Grade-II and in view thereof, he had been paid continuously the salary of Grade-II instead of Grad-III, though as per his own transfer order, he could get only the salary of Inspector of Works, Grade-III. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued by the Department after expiry of about 10 years, and after five years promoting the respondent-employee, again to the post of Grade-II that he had wrongly been paid higher pay scale than he was entitled for, and he was asked to explain as to why recovery should not be made from him and consequently, the recovery was made. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner filed O.A. No. 571 of 1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad contending that his transfer as Inspector of Works, Grade-III was illegal and the recovery had illegally been made from him. Learned Tribunal rejected the claim so far as the first relief was concerned, however, directed that the recovery of the excess amount paid to him was illegal and the said amount should be refunded to him. Hence this petition.

Admittedly, the employee was not entitled for the salary of Grade-II. However,  there was no misrepresentation on his part to the extent of submitting the Last Pay Certificate, as he submitted the correct certificate for the reason that he had been drawing that amount in Assam. There is nothing on the record to show that any misrepresentation was made by the petitioner except that he did not bring it to the notice of the authorities that he was getting higher amount. But we failed to understand how the authorities could pay him continuously for a period of more than six years the salary more than he was entitled to. As the learned Tribunal has recorded the finding of fact that there was no misrepresentation on his part, we see no ground to interfere with the said finding and, thus, the impugned judgment and order does not require any interference.

Shri Tarun Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as the Tribunal had issued a direction to refund the amount within three months and that period is over and the respondent-employee has initiated contempt proceedings, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we extend the period and the petitioner may refund the said amount within a period of three months from today and for a period of three months, we request the learned Tribunal to keep the contempt proceedings in abeyance, and in case the amount is not paid within three months, the learned Tribunal may proceed with contempt proceedings.

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of finally.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.