Writ Petition No. 6978 of 2010. Case: Union of India & Anr. Vs Nasiruddin Sadruddin. Bombay High Court

Case Number:Writ Petition No. 6978 of 2010
Party Name:Union of India & Anr. Vs Nasiruddin Sadruddin
Counsel:For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w D. A. Dube, Advs.
Judges:V. M. Kanade & M. S. Sonak, JJ.
Issue:Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227
Judgement Date:June 06, 2016
Court:Bombay High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

V. M. Kanade, J.

  1. The Union of India has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 51 of 2009 filed by the Respondent, restraining the Petitioners herein to recover the excess amount mistakenly paid and to refund a small portion of the amount already recovered from the Respondent with simple interest.

  2. Brief facts are that the Applicant was working as Artisan Grade-III with the Respondent. The Railway Board took a policy decision regarding up-gradation of certain posts by order dated 28th September, 1998. Accordingly, he was up-graded to the post of Artisan Grade III with effect from 1st September, 1998. It is not in dispute that the up-graded pay scale was to be granted on their passing prescribed Trade Test within reasonable time. The Applicant passed the prescribed examination on 4.8.2000. Recovery proceedings were initiated against the Respondent for recovering the difference of salary paid to him on his up-gradation i.e. from 1.9.1998 to 4.8.2000. The contention of the respondent was not that he had not committed fraud and has not made any misrepresentation and the said payment was made by the Railway Authorities. The Central Administrative Tribunal by referring the law laid down by the Supreme Court in several cases and more particularly, a law laid down by the Apex Court, summarizing the whole law on the subject in the case of Col. BJ Akkara (Retd) vs. Government of India & Others [2007 (1) SCC (L&S) 529], came to the conclusion that since it was established that the Respondent had not committed any fraud or made any misrepresentation, recovery could not have been made from the employee.

  3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The record bears out that the Respondent was holding the post of Artisan (Tech), which is a Grade-III post. The CAT has noted that the Respondent was in no manner a party to or responsible for benefit of up-gradation from 1.9.1998 instead of 4.8.2000. The excess amount paid to the Respondent during the said period works out to hardly Rs.10, 928/-. The recovery of this amount after period of over six years would undoubtedly bring about an iniquitous situation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shyam Babu Verma Others Vs...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL