UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY CHENNAI Vs. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 29.06.2011, made in O.A.No.1081 of 2010, whereby the original application, which was filed by the second respondent herein against the order, dated 07.02.2010, and the consequential orders dated 09.03.2010 and 13.03.2010 passed by the second petitioner, thereby restricting the encashment of leave benefits of the second respondent from the date of joining in 2006 till the date of retirement, and directing recovery of overpayment, was allowed and the respondents therein were directed to revise the pay, the arrears of salary and pension to the applicant/the second respondent herein based on the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission without any deduction.

(2.) THE brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition, in nutshell, are as follows:-

(3.) ON going through the entire materials placed on record, it is seen that the Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel on either side and after going through the entire materials placed on record, satisfied itself that the respondents therein, who are the petitioners herein, were not justified in passing the order of recovery of overpayment, after a period of four years and the applicant/second respondent herein could not be punished for any misreading of the law or rules by the Railway Board. It is also seen from the perusal of the records that the respondents therein, in compliance of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.14369 of 1999 and 8022 of 2000, dated 20.08.2005, directing the Board to implement the Scheme framed by the Division Bench for the reinstatement of the applicant therein and the other similarly situated persons, the petitioners have given appointment to the second respondent with retrospective effect and considering the regular service from the date of Award, viz., 15.04.1994, all the benefits were paid to the second respondent and now, on the ground of wrong calculation by the Railway Board with regard to payment of leave encashment, orders impugned in the original application, have been passed to recover the same, after a period of four years. If the petitioners are having any doubt, they should have asked for clarification from the Division Bench instead of taking action on their own, after implementation of the order passed by the Division Bench. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.