P.K. IBRAHIM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OA No.181/2014 has been filed by 124 applicants and it was decided as early as on 2/6/2017. The petitioner who is the 124 th applicant submits that the file came to be misplaced in the Advocate's office and therefore the Original Petition could not be filed within a reasonable time. Under normal circumstances, this case ought to be disposed of on the ground of delay and laches. But having regard to the fact that petitioner is a person who comes from Lakshadweep Islands and he contends that he is working as a Class C employee, it is only appropriate to consider the claim on merits.

(2.) The Original Application came to be filed inter alia contending that though special compensatory allowance and hard area allowances were extended to the applicants as per the recommendation of the Central Pay Commission, on the ground that an error had been committed and there was an over payment, there was a demand for refund of the amounts in installments. The Tribunal having considered the merits of the contentions observed that hard area allowance cannot be drawn in addition to special compensatory allowance and therefore, there was justification on the part of the administration in directing that the excess amount paid should be recovered back from the employees concerned. The applicants sought a declaration that they were entitled to both these allowances simultaneously along with Islands Special Duty Allowance (ISDA). The said claim was denied by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also made reference to its own earlier view in the matter. It was also found that the recovery of the excess amount cannot be resisted. But taking into account the hardship faced by retired employees, it was held that in respect of those persons, ends of justice will be met, if 1/3rd of the excess allowance drawn alone is recovered from retired employees and the entire excess amount drawn be recovered from serving persons but it should be in installments.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Central Government standing counsel appearing for the Lakshadweep administration, we do not think that this is a fit case in which we should interfere in the decision taken by the Tribunal as far as the merits of the contentions are concerned. The Tribunal has considered the respective Government Circulars and had arrived at the conclusion that there was excess payment and when excess amount had been paid, necessarily the Government is entitled to seek a refund of the same.