AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Shri Shiv Mangal Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, are present and heard.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a retired employee. After his retirement, a notice dated 10.08.2026 (Annexure A-1) was issued to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant states that just after receiving the notice he has also filed a reply and a reminder annexed as Annexure no-8 of the OA. but no decision has been taken on the same till date. He is apprehensive that without taking a decision on the reply of the applicant the recovery may be started.
Learned counsel for the respondents states that since reply submitted by the applicant is still pending and no decision has been taken till date to recover the excess payment, no cause of action is available before the applicant for filing this Original Application.
I have considered the rival submission and compared the same with the facts disclosed in the OA as well as notice dated 10.08.2026 and reply submitted against the same.
In view of the submissions made above, without entering into the merits of this case, the OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to take a decision on the reply and the reminder made by the applicant annexed as Annexure no-8 of the OA within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified a copy of this order by passing a reasoned and speaking order thereon communicating the same to the applicant within a week thereafter. While passing such an order the respondents must keep in mind Central Administrative Tribunalthe settled legal position on the matter of recovery by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated by it time and again.
All associated M.As. also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.