Disposed

S.S. Kashikar & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Dec 2016W.P.(C)/8406/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition concerning refund of misutilized allowances by DRDO ex-servicemen. Court granted one extra year to one petitioner due to salary limitations and authorized salary deduction of Rs.10,000 to recover amounts from others.

What did the court decide?

Granted one year further time to one petitioner to refund Rs. 8,43,132; permitted salary deduction of Rs. 10,000 to recover balance amounts.

S.S. Kashikar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~29

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 8406/2016

¶4

S.S. KASHIKAR & ORS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Satyajit Desai and Mr. Sudeep Dey, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondent Through Ms. Barkha Babbar and Ms. Dipanjali Tyagi, Advocates alongwith Gp. Capt. M. Shrivastava, Jt. Director (MS/FT), HQ DRDO.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

¶8

O R D E R % 02.12.2016

¶9

The respondents have filed before us a chart giving the gross pay of

¶10

the petitioners and the total amount of recoveries to be made. The said

¶11

chart/table reads as under:-

¶12

“

¶13

Sl No	Name of scientists	Gross Pay Per Month	Total Recovery Amount in rupees
i.	S S Kashikar, Sc „E‟ ARDE	Rs 1,45,996/-	Rs 5,06,243.00/-
ii.	Abihshek Gupta, Sc „D‟ ARDE	Rs 1,11,999/-	Rs 5,06,243.00/-
iii.	Amit Bhetiwal, Sc „D‟ ARDE	Rs 1,04,014	Rs 5,06,243.00/-

¶14

iv.	Kusumkant Devendra Dhote,Sc „F‟ ARDE	Rs 1,83,994/-	Rs 8,43,132.00/-
v.	Suvash Kumar, Sc„D‟ ARDE	Rs 1,04,054/-	Rs 8,43,132.00/-
vi.	G Venkatesan, Sc „F‟ CVRDE	Rs 1,80,087/-	Rs 8,40,761.00/-
vii.	P Nijalingappa, Sc „D‟ VRDE	Rs 1,41,646/-	Rs 8,40,761.00/- ”

¶15

Counsel for the respondent has stated that G. Venkatesan and S. Parthasarthy had made payments of Rs.10,000/- per month from January, 2015 till April/May, 2015. Thereafter, they have stopped making payment. Counsel for the respondent on instructions states that in case the petitioners

¶16

make payment of the entire arrears within four years from today, they would not have any objection.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioners states that the statement made by the counsel for the respondent is acceptable, except in the case of Suvash Kumar, the fifth petitioner, who has to refund Rs.8,43,132/-, as his monthly gross salary is Rs.1,04,054/-.

¶18

Keeping in view the aforesaid position, we grant one year further time to Suvash Kumar to make the said payment of Rs.8,43,132/-.

¶19

In order to ensure that the payment is made in due time, we permit the

¶20

respondent to deduct Rs.10,000/- from the salary payable to the petitioners.

¶21

However, the petitioners would be informed about the deduction so that there is no confusion.

¶22

It is also clarified that in case any of the petitioners resigns, voluntarily retires or removed, dismissed or suspended from service, full balance amount would be recovered immediately.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioners submits that they have paid income tax, on the amount being refunded. The petitioners, it is stated, may be entitled to deduction/benefit in income tax, on account of refund. The respondent would extend full cooperation and furnish necessary certificates as per law.

¶24

Recording the above, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

SANJIV KHANNA, J

¶26

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J

¶27

DECEMBER 02, 2016 NA/VKR

S.S. Kashikar & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.S. Kashikar & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

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

Vijay Kumar Vs Food Corporation of India & or

Aravali Infrapower Ltd. Vs Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax

Manoj Kumar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Jai Karan and Ors. Vs Deputy Commissioner Sadar Paharganj Zone and Ors.

Rishabh Jain Vs New Delhi Municipal Corporation

Etisha Vs Chairman Central Board of Secondary Education

M/S Shive Extrusions Vs Ram Bahadur

State of Tamil Nadu Vs Union of India and Anr.

U. Rai Arya Vs Union of India and Anr.

Atul Sood Vs Delhi Police & Anr.

Union of India & Anr. Vs Anand Singh

Union of India and Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar

Seema Ojha & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.