UNION OF INDIA Vs. TARACHAND J CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 31.3.2011 in Original Application No.289 of 2009; and judgment and order dated 21.11.2011 in Review Application No.39 of 2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad.

(2.) HEARD learned advocate Ms.Roopal R.Patel for the petitioners and Ms.J.K.Hingorani, learned advocate for the respondent. The matter is listed for admission. However, both the learned counsel have agreed that the matter may be decided finally.

(3.) SO far as the original respondent Tarachand J. Chauhan in this case is concerned, it is submitted by the petitioners that though he was deputed and working with BSNL, he is not entitled to be absorbed because of pending Departmental Inquiry against him in Department of Telecommunications and, therefore, the salary paid to him as per the rules of BSNL is not applicable, but he is entitled to the salary, which he was getting from Department of Telecommunications and, therefore, since there is wrongful payment to the original respondent, same is required to be recovered back. As against that, it is submitted by the respondent that there was no role on his part or there was no misrepresentation by him or that he had never claimed and charged particular salary, but he has received the salary which was paid by the petitioners to him without any objection or protest or representation and, therefore, now, recovery would govern as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India reported in (1994)2 SCC 521, contending that if any condition as stipulated in such judgment is not fulfilled, there cannot be recovery of salary paid to him.