AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Elipe Dharma Rao
This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 29.06.2011, made in O.A. No. 1081 of
2010, whereby the original application, which was filed by the second respondent herein against the order, dated 07.02.2010, and the
consequential orders dated 09.03.2010 and 13.03.2010 passed by the second petitioner, thereby restricting the encashment of leave benefits of
the second respondent from the date of joining in 2006 till the date of retirement, and directing recovery of overpayment, was allowed and the
respondents therein were directed to revise the pay, the arrears of salary and pension to the applicant/the second respondent herein based on the
recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission without any deduction.
The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition, in nutshell, are as follows:
(a) The second respondent joined the services of the petitioners Railway Board on 31.01.1984 as Piece Rate Tailor and he was terminated from
service along with 35 others on 20.12.1986 on the ground that their period of contract had expired and hence, their services could not be
extended any more, against which, they have raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 52 of 1988 and the Industrial Tribunal, as per Award dated
03.11.1989, confirmed the order of termination and aggrieved by the said order, the second respondent along with 35 others have filed O.A. No.
469 of 1990 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and by order dated 10.12.1991, the Tribunal set aside the Award and remanded the
matter back to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration.
(b) The Industrial Tribunal, as per order dated 15.04.1994, directed the petitioners to reinstate the second respondent into service, against which,
the petitioners have filed W.P. No. 15214 of 1995 before the High Court and the same was dismissed as per order dated 01.08.1997 and the
writ appeal in W.A. No. 1191 of 1997, which was filed against the order dated 01.08.1997, was also dismissed vide order dated 25.09.1997
and the SLP filed by the Railways against the order dated 25.09.1997 in SLP No. 3530 of 1998 was also dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme
Court of India, as per order dated 23.02.1998.
(c).Pursuant to the orders, referred to above, as per letter dated 23.11.1998, the petitioners informed the second respondent to join duty on or
before 24.12.1998 and he joined duty on 30.11.1998 and at that time, he was asked to sign the contract and to bring sewing machines, against
which, a legal notice, dated 30.11.1998 was issued to the petitioners stating that there was no such condition at any point of time and again when
the second respondent reported for duty on 07.12.1998, he was not provided with work and hence, the second respondent filed O.A. No. 73 of
1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and for non payment of wages, he also filed C.P. No. 18 of 1995 before the Labour Court.
(d) The Tribunal, as per order dated 30.07.1999, directed the petitioners herein to take the second respondent back into service before
15.08.1999 with a further direction to frame a scheme to reinstate the second respondent and other similarly situated persons into service in view
of the various judgments rendered by the various Courts/Tribunals, against which, the Railways have filed W.P. No. 14369 of 1999. They also
filed W.P. No. 8022 of 2000 against the order, dated 09.11.1999 made in C.P. No. 18 of 1995. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by a
common order dated 20.08.2005 by framing a Scheme, which should be implemented by the Railway Board.
(e) Pursuant to the aforesaid Scheme, the second respondent was given appointment as Stores Khalasi and though he joined duty on 30.01.2006,
he was given appointment with retrospective effect from 15.04.1994 and after attaining the age of superannuation, the second respondent retired
from service on 31.10.2006. Seeking pension by calculating his service from 31.01.1984 and medical benefits and travel concessions, the second
respondent filed O.A. No. 713 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal by holding that the
Tribunal could not go beyond the scheme framed by the Hon''ble High Court, as per the orders made in W.P.Nos.14369 of 1999 and 8022 of
2000, dated 20.08.2005 and the writ petition filed against the order of the Tribunal was also dismissed.
(f) As per the orders, referred to above, though the retiral benefits including the leave encashment on the accumulated leave amounting to Rs.
67,920/- and 75% of the backwages totaling to Rs. 3,92,908/- were paid to the second respondent, after a period of four years, it was informed
by the petitioners that as per the review of the leave account of the second respondent made by the Audit Department, it was found that he has
been crediting leave on average pay from 15.04.1994, which was not correct and he is eligible for leave salary only from the actual date of
appointment during 2006, and hence, as per letter dated 07.02.2010, and the consequential letters dated 09.03.2010 and 13.03.2010, the
petitioners have ordered recovery of overpayment, against which, the second respondent has filed O.A. No. 1081 of 2010.
The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the impugned orders and allowed the original application by
directing the respondents therein to revise the pay, the arrears of salary and pension to the applicant/the second respondent herein based on the
recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission without any deduction. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the entire materials placed on record.
On going through the entire materials placed on record, it is seen that the Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel on either side and after
going through the entire materials placed on record, satisfied itself that the respondents therein, who are the petitioners herein, were not justified in
passing the order of recovery of overpayment, after a period of four years and the applicant/second respondent herein could not be punished for
any misreading of the law or rules by the Railway Board. It is also seen from the perusal of the records that the respondents therein, in compliance
of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.14369 of 1999 and 8022 of 2000, dated 20.08.2005, directing the Board to
implement the Scheme framed by the Division Bench for the reinstatement of the applicant therein and the other similarly situated persons, the
petitioners have given appointment to the second respondent with retrospective effect and considering the regular service from the date of Award,
viz., 15.04.1994, all the benefits were paid to the second respondent and now, on the ground of wrong calculation by the Railway Board with
regard to payment of leave encashment, orders impugned in the original application, have been passed to recover the same, after a period of four
years. If the petitioners are having any doubt, they should have asked for clarification from the Division Bench instead of taking action on their own,
after implementation of the order passed by the Division Bench. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the
Tribunal.
In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Connected M.P. is closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.