Dismissed

Union of India and Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2010CWP/8142/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order quashing recovery from an employee who had received inadvertent monetary benefits. Relying on the Full Bench judgment in Budh Ram, the Court held that no recovery could be effected without fraud or misrepresentation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Central… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No. 8142 CAT of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 8142 CAT of 2010 Date of decision:06.05.2010

¶5

Union of India and others

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Central Administrative Tribunal and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

To be referred to the reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

M.M.KUMAR, J.

¶15

The only issue raised in the instant petition filed by the Union of India against the judgment dated 31.10.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (OA No.866 PB-2003) is whether any recovery could be effected from an employee, who has been given monetary benefits. It is not disputed that inadvertently financial benefits were granted to employeerespondent by releasing him selection grade and he was placed under 10% of the posts, which were to be upgraded in the higher scale. The Tribunal by following the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others, 1994(1) SLR 753 took the view that the benefit could be withdrawn but recovery could not be

¶16

CWP No. 8142 CAT of 2010 2

¶17

effected. The petitioner had withdrawn the order granting him selection grade but a show cause notice for recovery was issued to employee-respondent. The benefit was withdrawn and the recovery was sought to be effected from him. However, the Tribunal has quashed the order to the extent of effecting recovery from the employee-respondent. The amount which was recovered was directed to be refunded to him.

¶18

After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any legal infirmity warranting admission of the petition. As a matter of fact, a Full Bench of this Court after considering a number of judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court as well as other Courts has held in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) SCT 333 that no recovery could be effected in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶19

(M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE

¶20

06.05.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE

Union of India and Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Rani Shaver Poultry Breeding Farm Pv.T Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

B.,S.N.L. & Ors. Vs C.A.T. & Ors.

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnal Vs Kamini Jain

Rajinder & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Gurdial Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kewal Krishan and Ors. Vs Amritsar Improvement Trust, and Ors.