EX HAV JAGDAMBA PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ex-Hav. Jagdamba Prasad, a Combatant in the Indian Army was posted to No.7, Delhi Bn NCC, B-6 Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi on 20.11.1997 and he remained posted there till 28.6.2000. On 20.11.1997, he was permitted by Station Headquarters, Delhi Cantt. (an office under respondent no.2) to live with his family at the duty station i.e Delhi under his own arrangement and claim compensation in lieu of quarter (in short CILQ). Pursuant to the said sanction granted to him, he hired a private accommodation at Delhi and resided therein with his family i.e wife and two children out of total four children from 1.5.1998 to 30.6.2000. The petitioner was allowed reimbursement @ Rs.2100/- per month on account of CILQ vide sanction granted by the Station Headquarter, Delhi on 19.8.1998. Pursuant thereto he was paid CILQ @ Rs.2100/-per month from 1.5.1998 to 30.6.2000. The petitioner retired from the Army service while he was posted in 7 Delhi Bn NCC on 31.7.2000. At the time of final settlement of his accounts, a sum of Rs.41,340/- was deducted by Assistant Controller, Defence Accounts (an office under Respondent no.3) without any prior notice to him. The petitioner made representations to the concerned authorities for refund of amount of Rs.41,340/- erroneously recovered from his retiremental dues but the same was of no avail. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to refund Rs.41,340/- erroneously recovered by them from his retiremental dues. The petitioner has also made a prayer for award of interest at 9% p.a on the afore- mentioned amount.

(2.) The respondents in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf, have tried to justify the recovery of Rs.41,340/- from the retiremental dues of the petitioner on account of CILQ for the period from 1.5.1998 to 30.6.2000 stating that the said recovery was based on two contradictory station orders issued by the Station Headquarter, Delhi Cantt. on the same day i.e 220/Gen/CILQ/Q- 5, dated 19.8.1998 with the certificate that the family was staying with the individual and other staying at their native place.

(3.) It is contended that the two contradictory certificates and two station orders of the same date was the reason to recover the CILQ difference of Rs.1590/- p.m i.e (2100/- for CCAI less rupees 510 for CCOTH). In the counter affidavit the respondents have also pointed out the discrepancy in the complaint dated 14.5.2002 addressed by the petitioner to respondent no.3 and his representation dated 10.10.2003 addressed to Chief of Army Staff. It is stated that in his complaint dated 14.5.2002 addressed to respondent no.3, the petitioner had stated that he was actually residing with his family at New Delhi w.e.f 20.11.1997, whereas in his representation dated 10.10.2003 addressed to Chief of Army Staff he has admitted that he actually stayed with his family at Delhi for the period from 19.8.1998 to 28.6.2000. It is contended that the above discrepancy was brought to the notice of record office, GRC on 8.12.2003 with a request for investigation of the matter by the competent authority. It is further contended that the petitioner had claimed children education allowance (CEA) from 1.5.1998 to 30.6.2000 though as per certificate furnished from the OC Unit the children education allowance was admissible only to those individuals who are compelled to send their children to a school away from the station at which they were posted and/or residing owing to the absence of school of requisite standard at that station. On this basis, it was said that the petitioner was staying away from his family and had claimed CEA for two children.