Union of India and Another Vs Centre Administrative Tribunal Chd Bench and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Union of India and Another Vs Centre Administrative Tribunal Chd Bench and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging the CAT order dated 08.05.2023 — which allowed the OA of respondent No.2 and directed re-determination of pension and retiral benefits with effect from 01.12.2017 treating the last pay as Rs.66,000/- and refund of the recovered amount of Rs.2,70,392/- — should be allowed and the CAT order set aside.

Court's answer

The Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the CAT; the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Factual finding: the last pay of respondent No.2 was reduced to Rs.64,100/- by the Divisional Personnel Officer without there being any explanation coming forward for revising the said last pay.

Key takeaways

Factual finding: no opportunity was given to the retired respondent No.2; his pay and pension were revised accordingly and the amount of Rs.2,70,392/- was recovered.ratio¶20
The Court noted that the CAT had noticed the judgments in respect of pay fixation and recovery while passing its detailed order.ratio¶21
Admonition: unnecessary litigation comes to the Courts on account of arbitrary actions of officers who treat themselves as the authority in themselves (here, a subordinate Divisional Personnel Officer revising his superior's order without consent); such attitude deserves to be curtailed, and the Court says nothing further, leaving it to the authorities to take appropriate action.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-2899-2024 (O&M) — Union of India and Another v. Centre Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and Another (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 08.07.2025 by Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ.; oral judgment by Shri Sharma). The writ petition challenged the CAT order dated 08.05.2023, which had allowed the OA of a retired railway employee (respondent No.2) and directed the Union of India to re-determine his pension and other retiral benefits with effect from 01.12.2017 treating the last pay as Rs.66,000/- and to refund the recovered amount of Rs.2,70,392/-. The Court traced the pay-fixation history: last pay revised from Rs.66,000/- to Rs.62,200/- on Accounts Department objections (pay scale Rs.4000-6000/- as on 01.01.1996, not Rs.5000-8000/-) by order of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer dated 21.11.2017; restored to Rs.66000/- after noticing promotion as TTI in Grade Rs.5500-9000/- w.e.f. 01.11.2003; then reduced to Rs.64,100/- by the subordinate Divisional Personnel Officer without any explanation and without any opportunity to the retired employee, followed by recovery of Rs.2,70,392/-. Asked to explain, the DPO asserted by affidavit that he is the Cadre Controlling Officer and that the order of 20.03.2018 was signed on behalf of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer by an Assistant Personnel Officer. Finding no reason to interfere with the CAT order — which had noticed the relevant judgments on pay fixation and recovery — the Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits and disposed of all pending applications accordingly. Observing that allowing subordinates to revise orders of superior officers would invite administrative chaos, the Court deprecated such arbitrary actions as a source of unnecessary litigation, said its attitude deserves to be curtailed, and left remedial action to the authorities.

CWP-2899-2024 (O&M)

Page 1 of 3

103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-2899-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.07.2025

UNION OF I N DIA AND ANOTHER

. . . . Petitioner s Vs.

CENTRE A D MINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHD BENCH AND ANR

. . . . Respondent s

****

**CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA ******

Present: M r. Sudhir Nar, Sr. Panel Couns e l f or the petitioners.

****

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

The challenge is to the order dated 0 8 .05.2023 passed by the Centra l Admin i strative Tribunal (CAT) where b y the OA filed by the applican t (respo n dent No.2 herein) was allowed, and the writ petitioner/Union o f India w as directed to re-determine the p ension and other retiral benefit s with e f fect from 01.12.2017 treating t h e last pay as Rs.66,000/- and t o refund the recovered amount of Rs.2,70,392/to th e applic a nt/respondent No.2.

Learne d counsel submits that the last pay of respondent No.2 wa s wrongl y fixed at Rs.66,000/- and the s a me was therefore corrected vid e order d ated 13.11.2018 to Rs.64,100/- a s the last pay drawn. The orde r passed by the CAT, therefore deserves t o be set aside.

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.09 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-2899-2024 (O&M)

Page 2 of 3

We ha v e carefully gone through the o r der passed by the learned CAT , and al s o with the orders of the pay fi x ation. We notice that originall y when r e spondent No.2 retired, his last pay was revised on the basis o f objecti o ns raised by the Accounts D epartment from Rs.66,000/- t o Rs.62, 2 00/- on the basis that as on 01. 0 1.1996, he was drawing the pa y in the p ay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- an d not Rs.5000-8000/-. The orde r of revi s ion was passed by the Senior D ivisional Personnel Officer o n 21.11. 2 017. The said order was howe v er modified by the same office , and aft e r noticing that the respondent N o.2 had been promoted as TT I in Gr a de of Rs.5500-9000/- with effect from 01.11.2003 an d accord i ngly his last pay was again rev i sed to Rs.66000/- by the offic e of Senior Divisional Personnel Officer N orthern Railway, Ambala Can t . Howe v er, the said order was again re v ised by the subordinate officer , namel y Divisional Personnel Officer, and last pay was reduced t o Rs.64, 1 00/-, without there being any e xplanation coming forward fo r revisin g the said last pay. We also noti c e that no opportunity was give n to the r etired respondent No.2, and hi s pay and pension were revise d accord i ngly the amount of Rs.2,70,392 / - was recovered.

Taking note of all the aforesaid facts, t h e OA has been allowed, and th e petitio n ers have been directed as abov e . We notice that the judgment s in resp e ct of pay fixation and recover y have been noticed by the CA T while p assing the detailed order.

We ha d asked the concerned Divisiona l Personnel Officer to explain a s to how he could have revised an orde r passed by his superior officer .

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.09 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-2899-2024 (O&M)

Page 3 of 3

He ha s asserted by way of an affi d avit that it is the Divisiona l Person n el Officer who is the Cadre C o ntrolling Officer, and the orde r of 20. 0 3.2018 was signed on behalf of Senior Divisional Personne l Office r by one Assistant Personnel Off i cer.

We notice that if such authority to revi s e orders of the superior officer s is allo w ed, it would invite administrat i ve chaos. He does not even sa y that he had taken any consent from his superior officers for revising th e orders. Unnecessary litigation comes t o the Courts on account of suc h arbitra r y actions taken by the officer s , who treat themselves as th e authori t y in themselves. Such attitude deserves to be curtailed. We d o not say anything further in this regard, a nd leave it for the authorities t o

take ap p ropriate action.

We, ho w ever, do not find any reason t o interfere with the order passe d by the CAT. Writ Petition is devoi d of merits and is accordingl y dismis s ed.

All pe n ding applications also stand dis p osed of accordingly.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE

08.07.2025

Mohit goyal

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.09 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 08.05.2023 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench) allowing the OA filed by the applicant (respondent No.2, a retired railway employee) and directing the Union of India to re-determine pension and other retiral benefits with effect from 01.12.2017 treating the last pay as Rs.66,000/- and to refund the recovered amount of Rs.2,70,392/-.¶15
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh Bench · 08.05.2023
Prior proceeding
On respondent No.2's retirement, his last pay was revised from Rs.66,000/- to Rs.62,200/- on objections raised by the Accounts Department, on the basis that as on 01.01.1996 he was drawing pay in the scale of Rs.4000-6000/- and not Rs.5000-8000/-.¶20
Prior proceeding
The order of revision was passed by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer on 21.11.2017.¶20
Prior proceeding
The same office modified the order after noticing that respondent No.2 had been promoted as TTI in Grade Rs.5500-9000/- with effect from 01.11.2003, and his last pay was again revised to Rs.66000/- by the office of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt.¶20
Prior proceeding
The said order was again revised by the subordinate officer, namely the Divisional Personnel Officer, reducing the last pay to Rs.64,100/- without any explanation coming forward for revising the said last pay.¶20
Prior proceeding
No opportunity was given to the retired respondent No.2; his pay and pension were revised accordingly and the amount of Rs.2,70,392/- was recovered.¶20
Prior proceeding
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the last pay of respondent No.2 was wrongly fixed at Rs.66,000/- and was corrected vide order dated 13.11.2018 to Rs.64,100/- as the last pay drawn; the CAT order therefore deserved to be set aside.¶16
Prior proceeding
The Court had asked the concerned Divisional Personnel Officer to explain how he could have revised an order passed by his superior officer.¶22
Prior proceeding
In response, the Divisional Personnel Officer asserted by way of an affidavit that he is the Cadre Controlling Officer and that the order of 20.03.2018 was signed on behalf of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer by one Assistant Personnel Officer.¶26
Prior proceeding
The CAT, while passing its detailed order, had noticed the judgments relating to pay fixation and recovery.¶21