Remanded

Union of India through the General Manager v. Shyam Sunder Sharma S/O Ghisulal

Rajasthan HC10 Jul 2024CW/16485/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order allowing an application for correction of pay fixation and quashing recovery proceedings were disposed of jointly. The Court held that while the recovery issue was not before it, the Tribunal must decide the payment fixation issue afresh within three months; interim retiral benefits are not impeded.

What did the court decide?

Remitted the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the issue of pay fixation within three months from date of receiving certified copy of order.

Union of India through the General Manager… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:28813-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8398/2022

¶4

Union Of India through the General Manager, NorthWestern Railway, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur 302018.

¶5

Chief Works Manager, Carriage Workshop, Ajmer, Loco Workshops Ajmer (Rajasthan) India 305001.

¶6

Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer (Carriage), Ajmer, Carriage Workshop, Johnsganj, Ajmer (Rajasthan) India- 305001.

¶7

Assistant Personnel Officer, Carriage Shop, North Western Railways, Ajmer, Loco Workshop Ajmer (Rajasthan), India- 305001.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Sohan Lal Pathriya S/o Late Shri Nauratmal, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 1402/3, Lodha Mohalla, Nasirabad, Dist. Ajmer. Retired From The Post Of Sr. Technician/ Fitter (Mcf), Carriage Workshop, Ajmer (Grade-Iii) On 31-5-2019. Ticket No. 59985/31.

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

Connected With

¶13

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16485/2022

¶14

Union Of India Through The General Manager, North Western Railway, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur 302004

¶15

Chief Works Manager, North Western Railways, Loco Workshop Ajmer, Railway Quarters, Ajmer, Rajasthan305001.

¶16

Assistant Personnel Officer (Establishment), Carriage Workshop, Ajmer, Railway Quarters, Ajmer, Rajasthan305001.

¶17

Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer (Carriage), Carriage Workshop Ajmer, Railway Quarters, Ajmer, Rajasthan305001.

¶18

----Petitioners

¶19

Versus

¶20

Shyam Sunder Sharma S/o Ghisulal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o 424 A, Mateshwari Bhawan, Near Kali Mandir, Lane No. 10, Govind Nagar, Ramgunj, Ajmer. Retired From The Post Of Sr.

¶21

[2024:RJ-JP:28813-DB]

¶22

[CW-8398/2022]

¶23

(2 of 4)

¶24

Technician/ Fitter (Mcf), Carriage Workshop, Ajmer On 30.04.2019. Ticket No. 39238/28 (Group C- Employee)

¶25

----Respondent

¶26

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshad Kapoor

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶28

Order

¶29

10/07/2024

¶30

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-

¶31

These two petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and issues involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8398/2022.

¶32

This petition is filed aggrieved of decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ‘Tribunal’) dated 18.01.2022 allowing the Original Application (for short ‘OA’) of the respondent.

¶33

The brief facts are that the respondent was appointed as Khalasi on 18.09.1981 and was promoted from time to time. Respondent retired on 31.05.2019 as Senior Technician/Fitter (MCF). The petitioner in the year 2019 discovered that on 22.09.1988, an increment was wrongly given to the respondent and there was wrong fixation of the pay. The recovery proceedings were initiated for the differential amount. Aggrieved of re-fixation of the pay and of recovery, the respondent filed O.A. The O.A. was allowed and in view of the decision in State of Punjab & Ors. vs.

¶34

Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC

¶35

[2024:RJ-JP:28813-DB]

¶36

[CW-8398/2022]

¶37

(3 of 4)

¶38

334 it was held that recovery cannot be made consequent to the mistake discovered after 25 years and that too near the retirement of the respondent. Aggrieved of the decision, the present petition is filed.

¶39

While issuing notice of motion on 29.11.2022, this Court clarified that issue of recovery part is not being interfered with and the notice was issued only viz-a-viz fixation of the pay. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions fairly submits that order of this Court dated 29.11.2022 was not challenged. It is argued that the issue as to whether fixation of pay in the year 1988 was rightly made or was not decided by the Tribunal.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the interference by this Court was only with regard to fixation of the pay but till date retiral benefits of the respondent have not been released. On instructions counsel submits that for limited issue with regard to the fixation of pay, matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal for decision afresh. Further prayer is that the respondent is a retired employee, therefore, the Tribunal be directed to decide the issue in a time bound manner.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

¶42

Two issues were raised before the Tribunal. Firstly, was there error in pay fixed in the year 1988. Secondly, even assuming that pay was wrongly fixed, no recovery could have been made. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the second issue has been decided in favour of the respondent but without deciding first issue, impugned order was quashed. The

¶43

[2024:RJ-JP:28813-DB]

¶44

[CW-8398/2022]

¶45

(4 of 4)

¶46

first issue has ramification even if no recovery is made from respondent. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal only for deciding the issue of pay fixation. In other words, whether the pay in the year 1988 was rightly fixed or not.

¶47

Considering that O.A. pertains to year 2019, the Tribunal shall make a sincere effort to decide the issue within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶48

Let the parties appear before the Tribunal on 29.07.2024. It is clarified that these pending proceedings shall not be an impediment for releasing the retiral benefits of the respondent provided there is no other hindrance.

¶49

The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶50

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶51

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶52

Simple Kumawat /58-59

¶53

Whether Reportable: Yes/No

Union of India through the General Manager v. Shyam Sunder Sharma S/O Ghisulal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India through the General Manager v. Shyam Sunder Sharma S/O Ghisulal

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

Nishant Jain S/O Sh. Paras Chand Jain Vs Income Tax Department

M/S. Vibrant Academy (India) Pvt. Limited Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Gomti Devi W/O Late Shri Manak Chand Agarwal Vs Principle Commissioner of Income Tax - I

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Alwar Vs Rathi Special Steels Limited

Union of India through the General Manager Vs Sohan Lal Pathriya S/O Late Shri Nauratmal

R.R.v.P.N.Ltd and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.