Partly allowed

Dharmesh Kumar v. Union of India and 5 Others

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2023WRIA/9470/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging tribunal orders and consequential railway deductions for recovering excess terminal dues, the High Court declined interference but directed verification of deducted amounts and refund of excess recovery within a month.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to verify exact amount deducted within one month and pass order for refund of excess recovery and discontinue deductions beyond the calculated limit.

Dharmesh Kumar Vs Union of India and 5… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235123-DB

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9470 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Dharmesh Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Radha Kant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Shesh Mani Misra

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Radha Kant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shesh Mani Misra, learned counsel for the Union of India.

¶7

Present writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad dated 24.01.2018 and the consequential order passed by railway authorities providing for deduction of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the salary payment being paid to the present petitioner. Alternatively, it has been submitted, even if the order passed by the Tribunal is to be sustained, the respondents are entitled to deduct Rs. 3,95,112/- only. That deduction was to be made in 40 months. That period has long got over. Yet, the respondents/railway authorities continue to make deduction @ Rs. 10,000/- per month from the salary payments of the petitioner.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, insofar as it provides for recovery of excess money paid to the petitioner by way of terminal dues arising from the death of his father, Shri Om Prakash who was also a railway employee. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal reveals that the said

¶9

Om Prakash died on 5.11.2015. On the date of his death, he was survived by his second wife, Smt. Usha/respondent no. 6 and two sons namely the present petitioner and Awadhesh Kumar. Not disclosing the entitlement to succession of Smt. Usha, the present petitioner and his brother obtained payment of terminal dues. At the same time, the Railways granted compassionate appointment to the petitioner. He is presently a railway employee. Since the petitioner and his brother obtained excess payment to which they were not entitled, no error has been committed by the Tribunal in providing for deduction. Consequently no error exists in the order passed by the railway authority on 4.2.2020 to give effect to such an order.

¶10

It is in such facts that the Tribunal passed the impugned order providing for proportionate refund of excess payment made to the petitioner and his brother by making appropriate deduction from the monthly salary payment due to the petitioner such that a total deduction Rs. 3,95,112/- has been directed to be made. Consequently, under the order dated 4.2.2020, the railway authority has provided for monthly deduction of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the salary payment of next 39 months and also deduction of Rs. 5112/- from the 40th salary payment due to the petitioner. It is the petitioner's case that such deduction commenced from the month of April, 2020. Thus, as on date, amount in excess of Rs. 4,50,000/- is disclosed to have been deducted against the recoverable amount Rs. 3,95,112/-

¶11

As to alleged excess deductions, we consider it proper to direct the respondent no. 3 to revisit the issue and pass a fresh order to verify the exact amount deducted against the order dated 4.2.2020 and thereafter pass further order with respect to refund of any

¶12

excess recovery and to discontinue the deductions made from the salary of the petitioner in excess of Rs. 3,95,112/-. Such exercise may be completed within a period of one month from today.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition stands disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 12.12.2023 SA

¶15

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.) (S.D. Singh, J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SALMAN ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmesh Kumar v. Union of India and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmesh Kumar v. Union of India and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rishi Pal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Megha @ Madhu Vs Vibhor Sharma

Awadhesh Yadav Vs Anita Yadav @ Dimpal

Smt. Alka Vs Abhay Pal Singh

Vishnu Kumar Sahu and Another Vs Deputy District Collector/ Joint Magistrate and 8 Others

Mahendra Singh Vs Central Administrative Tribunal and Others