Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UNION OF INDIA THRU' GENERAL MANAGER, N.E.R. GORAKHPUR versus CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Union Of India Thru' General Manager, N.E.R. Gorakhpur v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Another - WRIT - A No. 51966 of 2002 [2004] RD-AH 1357 (8 November 2004)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51966 of 2002

Union of India and another vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and another

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J

Hon'ble VS Bajpai, J

1. Sri DN Rai (the contesting respondent) was appointed with the petitioners on 31.7.1958. He was promoted as X-ray Attendant on 23.5.1970. There was restructuring of the post and it was upgraded as Radiographer on 22.5.1975. The minimum qualification for this post was High School. The petitioner was not High School. The academic qualification of the contesting respondent for this post was waived on 26.6.1993. The contesting respondent was also given pay scale treating him to be the Radiographer from 22.6.1976. An objection was raised by the Account Department. Thereafter an order was passed on 10.5.1996 giving him the salary of Radiographer with effect from 2.12.1993. The excess payment made to the contesting respondents was adjusted from the post retiral benefit of the contesting respondent. The contesting respondent filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. This application was allowed on 4.9.2002, hence the present writ petition.

2. We have heard Sri Tarun Verma, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Budhwar, counsel for the contesting respondent. It is not disputed that the contesting respondent  did not have minimum qualification for the post of Radiographer but he worked over the post and has been given his salary. The contesting respondent has never made any representation that he had academic qualification of High School and as such there was no justification for deducting the pay that was  given to him. In view of this, there is no illegality in the order dated 4.9.2002. The petition has no merit. It is dismissed.

Dated: 8.11.2004

BBL


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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