AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicant has filed the present Original Application, seeking the following the main relief(s) as well as interim relief(s):-
a). Set aside the order dated 15.10.2017 passed by the respondent no.2 in O.M. No. A26011/5/2008-E-III.
b). Direct the respondents to waive the recovery proceedings against the applicant.
c) Any other relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case.
Interim relief
a) Direct the respondent no.2 not to initiate recovery against the Applicant's Salary till final disposal of the OA.
b) Any other relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and the circumstance of the case.
The respondent No.2 setting aside the request for waiver of recoveries of excess payment has passed Annexure A-1 order dated 25.10.2017, where recovery was ordered to the applicant, who is working as Stenographer with the respondents.
Background of the case is that initially the applicant has been given higher pay scale after stepping up of his pay in comparison to his Junior Shri Jai Bhagwan, whose case was referred to the DOP&T.
Pursuant to the order dated 02.12.2015 (Annexure A-5), the pay of the applicant has been reduced at the initial stage, whereas he should not be given the benefit of stepping up of his pay by the department as given reasoning that actually Mr. Jai Bhawan junior to the applicant was drawing higher pay as per his fixation, which was later on withdrawn as per the directions of the DOP&T. Similarly, the applicant has also get the benefits of stepping up of his pay uncorroborated of Jai Bhagwan and got such pay scale. The applicant was granted Rs.18460/-( Band pay of Rs. 13860/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-) in PB-2.
Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel has put in appearance and raised preliminary objections to the basic pay order of the DOP&T dated 02.12.2015, which has not been challenged by the applicant rather he challenged the recovery order dated 25.10.2017. Actually this Tribunal is of the view that this is fresh cause of action of the applicant which can simultaneously led to recovery, however, the applicant's counsel is convinced and he referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors vs. Raiq Masih (White Washer) etc CA No. 11527 of 2014 ( Arising out of SLP (C) No. 116684/2012, wherein the ratio has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But, the learned counsel for the respondents said that the said ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors vs. Raiq Masih is not applicable to the case of the applicant for the basic reason being given as per the ratio of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the applicant has not made out a case in his favour and the department has passed the order by way of recovery. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant has failed and made out a case which is impermissible under the law. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs.