Petitioner challenged an order allowing refund of excess family pension. Court held that since respondent had no role in wrong fixation and refund was already directed, it would not be fair to allow recovery upon downward revision. Dismissed writ petition under Article 226.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~7.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. U.N. Singh, Advocate.
versus
SHRI AJAY KUMAR GANGAL AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
%
O R D E R 07.08.2019
CM APPL. 35364/2019
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8548/2019 and CM APPL. 35363/2019
The petitioner assails the order dated 05.10.2018 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 4150/2017. The said Original Application had been preferred by the respondent No.1. The respondent No. 1 was aggrieved by the downward revision of the family pension by the petitioner. The Tribunal held that the downward revision was justified. However, the Tribunal held that since the respondent No.1 had no role to play in the wrong fixation of the family pension, no recovery could be made from him. Consequently, the Tribunal
directed that no recovery would be made from him and the amount already recovered would be refunded to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that so far as the direction issued for refund of the amount already recovered is concerned, the same was not justified considering the fact that the Tribunal has not interfered with the downward revision of the family pension.
In view of the fact that the respondent No.1 had no role to play in the matter of wrong fixation of the family pension in the first place and the fact that the petitioner had itself paid the wrongly fixed family pension to the respondent No.1, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. On a query, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amount directed to be refunded is to the tune of Rs. 30,000-40,000/-. The respondent No.1 being the husband of the deceased government servant, it would not be fair to permit the petitioner to make any recovery upon downward revision of the family pension. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
AUGUST 07, 2019 B.S. Rohella
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order allowing refund of excess family pension recovered from the respondent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN
SHRI AJAY KUMAR GANGAL
VIPIN SANGHI
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
