UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief:

(2.) Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that as per policy/procedure, a separate sanction of charge expenditure is required with regard to the cases of arrears/financial implication awarded by the learned Tribunal before releasing the payment. Therefore, the sanction of charged expenditure is required to be accorded by the Ministry of Defence/Finance Budget before releasing the payment. Hence, in order to comply with the direction of higher authorities i.e. Ministry of Defence, the case was submitted alongwith relevant documents to higher authorities for obtaining the sanction of charged expenditure vide Letter No.5061/ 02/E5 dated 31.01.2013. In the meanwhile, a suppl. Bill dated 31.01.2013 amounting to Rs. 4,48,055/- was forwarded to Audit Authorities AO GE Roorkee for provisional payment to respondent vide letter No.1139/RK/03/EIC dated 21.02.2013. The AO, GE Roorkee returned the Bill vide letter No. A/80/GE/MES/RKE/ dated 25.02.2013 for obtaining legal opinion/clarification, as per para 13 & 14 of the order of the learned Tribunal dated 28.10.2009. Thereafter, the matter was referred to HQ CWE (Hills), Dehradun vide letter No. 1139/RK/06/Eic dated 27.02.2013. The CWE advised for first legal opinion vide Letter No.1042/RK/ Sat/Ei (con) dated 23.03.2013. Accordingly, the matter was referred to CGSC vide letter No.1152/RK/CP/Ei dated 01.04.2013 who gave his opinion vide letter No. 22 dated 08.05.2013 and in accordance with the legal opinion of CGSC, a fresh sy Bill amounting to Rs. 1,33,650/- was prepared and forwarded vide letter No.1139/RK/16/Eic dated 22.05.2013. Thereafter, AO GE, Roorkee forwarded the bill to CDA Army Meerut for approval of provisional payment vide letter No.A.80/GE/MESRKE dated 31.05.2013. Although once Bill amounting to Rs. 4,48,055/- was forwarded; but, that was subject to decision by the higher authorities and, in fact, the higher authorities, keeping in view the judgment dated 28.10.2009 wherein it is stated that the respondent is not entitled for consequential benefits and after obtaining legal opinion, had decided to pay a sum of Rs. 1,33,650/- to the respondent. Therefore, the respondent was rightly paid a sum of Rs. 1,33,650/-.