SHANKER PRASHAD MUKERJI Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner who retired as a Vice Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) impugns the letter dated 9.4.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.4 whereby recovery was directed to be made from the pension being paid to the petitioner.

(2.) THE reason for recovery being initiated by the respondent No.2 is because the pension paid to the petitioner was in excess of the amount provided under the proviso to Sub Rule 2 of Rule 8 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries & Allowances & Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "subject Rules"). As per the proviso to Rule 8(2), pension which is granted to a Chairman or Vice Chairman or a Member of CAT cannot exceed the pension prescribed for a Judge of the High Court. Petitioner retired on 17.5.1993. Excess payment is said to have commenced from 1.1.1996 in violation to proviso to Rule 8(2). Respondent No.2 therefore seeks to recover the excess pension paid.

(3.) IN the present case it is an undisputed fact emerging on record that pension which was paid to the petitioner w.e.f 1.1.1996 was in excess of the pension payable to a Judge of the High Court. Once that is so, any amount paid to the petitioner would be in excess and in violation of the proviso to Rule 8(2) of subject Rules. I cannot agree with the contention as raised on behalf of the petitioner that proviso to Rule 8(2) only applies on the date of fixation of pension and not subsequently. Nothing contained in the proviso to Rule 8(2) states that the said proviso will not continue to apply during the entire period in which pension is paid to a person such as the petitioner/Vice Chairman of the CAT.