M R BHANGALYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders dated 26.08.2013 and 28.10.2013 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2187/2012 and R.A. No.175/2013, respectively.

(2.) MR . Shakti Chand Sharma, Advocate appears for the petitioner submits that the relevant office memorandum which governs the case of the petitioner is OM dated 2nd July 1999 and as per this OM the respondent had no right to deduct the entire pension as was admissible to the petitioner from his salary on re -employment after his retirement. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner had retired from Group B post and on his re -employment, he cannot be paid a pay scale less than the one which was applicable at the relevant time. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in third and fourth spell of re -employment of the petitioner i.e. from 16.2.2001 to 30.06.2002 and 1.7.2002 to 28.01.2003, the respondents have themselves ignored the deduction of pension of the petitioner and fixed his pay at the minimum pay scale applicable however for the earlier periods of re -employment of the petitioner i.e. from 7.3.2006 to 31.3.2007 and from 10.4.1997 to 9.4.2000, the respondents have illegally deducted the pension amount from his salary.

(3.) MR . Vikram Jetly, the learned CGSC appears on behalf of the respondents on advance notice and has drawn the attention of this Court to the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit with regard to the non deduction of the pension amount for third and fourth spell of reemployment, wherein the respondents have categorically stated that for the said two spells, the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed without deducting the gross pension. The learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions from Mr. Dinesh Kochher, U.S., NCSK who is present in Court, submits that the respondents have yet not taken any steps to recover the said excess amount paid to the petitioner.