Tanmoy Bhattacharyya Vs Union of India & Anr.

This application seeks disposal of the writ petition in light of the Additional Affidavit filed by Respondent No. 1 i.e., Union of India [“ UOI ”] on 15^th April, 2026. An Additional Affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 2 i.e., National Brain Research Centre [“ NBRC ”] has also been handed over across the board by Mr. Chiranjiv Kumar, counsel for NBRC, and the same is also taken on record.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid Affidavits, the writ petition itself is taken up for consideration today itself. The instant application stands disposed of, as no separate orders are required to be passed.

¶15

W.P.(C) 9835/2023

¶16

The present petition impugns order dated 23^rd February, 2023 (incorrectly typed as 23^rd February, 2022), along with subsequent

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 13:21:20

¶19

communications, whereby recovery has been directed from the salary of the Petitioner on account of alleged excess payments relating to pensionary benefits drawn from his previous employment.

¶20

This Court, by order dated 27^th July, 2023, had directed that the impugned order be kept in abeyance. Both UOI and NBRC have now furnished Additional Affidavits before this Court.

¶21

The Affidavit filed by UOI reads as follows:

¶22

“3. That it is stated that the respondent no.1 has taken the following clarification from the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Govt. of India, New Delhi, which is as under :-

¶23

No deduction on account of pensionary benefits drawn by the absorptionist for the period of service under the Government is to be made from the pay drawn in the Autonomous Body/Public sector undertaking.

¶24

Therefore the respondent no.1 would also take the same stand in the matter of pay fixation as DST has taken necessary clarification from the Department of Pension and Pensions Welfares on the pension not to be reduced from the basic pay at the time of fixation of pay.

¶25

4. That it is further stated that the clarification received in case of ARCI, Hyderabad are true and correct.”

¶26

Likewise, NBRC has also handed over an Affidavit, which has been taken on record, and the same reads as follows:

¶27

“3. That it is stated that the respondent no.1 has taken the following clarification from the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Govt. of India, New Delhi, which is as under :-

¶28

No deduction on account of pensionary benefits drawn by the absorptionist for the period of service under the Government is to be made from the pay drawn in the Autonomous Body/Public sector undertaking.

¶29

And thereafter, the respondent no.1 has filed its affidavit in the Hon'ble court and has stated the following averments :-

¶30

“Therefore the respondent no.1 would also take the same stand in the matter of pay fixation as DST has taken necessary clarification from the Department of Pension and Pensions Welfares on the pension not to be reduced from the basic pay at the time of fixation of pay.

¶31

4. That it is further stated that the clarification received in case of ARCI,

¶32

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 13:21:20

¶33

Hyderabad are true and correct."

¶34

4. That considering the above submissions made by the respondent no. 1, the respondent no.2 would also take the same stand in the matter of pay fixation as DST has taken necessary clarification from the Department of Pension and Pensions Welfares on the pension not to be reduced from the basic pay at the time of fixation of pay .”

¶35

From the aforesaid Affidavits, it emerges that in view of the clarification received from the competent authorities, no deduction is required to be made from the salary of the Petitioner on account of pensionary benefits drawn from his previous employment.

¶36

In view of the above, the basis of the impugned orders does not survive. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, binding the Respondents to the stand taken in their Additional Affidavits. 9. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 23^rd February, 2023, 27^th February, 2023, 20^th March, 2023 and 22^nd March, 2023 are set aside. Any amount recovered from the Petitioner shall be refunded within a period of eight weeks from today, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deduction till the date of re-payment, and all consequential benefits. A detailed calculation of the refunded amount shall be furnished to the Petitioner.

¶37

The petition, along with all pending application(s), stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶38

The next date of hearing i.e. 30^th September, 2026, stands cancelled.

¶39

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶40

APRIL 28, 2026 nk

¶41

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 13:21:20

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 13:21:20

Tanmoy Bhattacharyya v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanmoy Bhattacharyya v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tata Play Limited Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.

Deepak Kumar Jha Vs Uco Bank and Ors.

Soniya Vs Bsf through Its Director General and Ors.

Lawrence Bishnoi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mr Divesh Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ns Trading Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.

Ms Dermaclinix the Complete Skin and Hair Solution Center Vs Additional Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi East

Chander Mohan and Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Indupreet Thukral and Anr. Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Balram Sharma & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Manifold Grow High Brokers LLP Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Pramod Kumar Gupta Vs Tara Chand Gupta

Shri C. Ramesh Vs Director, Vallabhabai Patel Chest Institute and Ors.

Shubham Srivastava Vs Gitarattan International Business School & Ors.