J SHADRACK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against a judgment and order dated 31-12-1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 950 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner prayed for setting aside the Memorandum No./ GR/P. 481/A/V/ dt. 24th August, 1998, which was issued reviving the order of recovery of overpaid amounts to the petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the matter are not much in dispute. The petitioner was initially appointed as Khalasi in the Loco Shed of Hubli Division on 21-1-1977. He opted for transfer for newly opened Wagon Workshop at Guntupalli and thereafter he was promoted to Welder (Skilled) Grade III, II and I on 31-12-1980,1-1-1984 and 1-3-1993 respectively. In the seniority list of skilled Grade-Ill Welders published on 23-2-1989, he was placed at Serial No. 77. The said entry was later on found to be erroneous and along with three colleagues of the petitioner, the seniority list was altered from 77 to 153-A on 12-4-1989.

(3.) The pay of the petitioner, which was revised in terms of the seniority list was thereafter refixed from Rs. 330.00 to Rs. 278/-. Consequent directions for recovery of the excess amounts paid to him were issued. The petitioner filed & representation which was not replied to. Thereafter, the aforementioned Original Application was filed before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal found that the petitioner had been pursuing his remedies before the Tribunal for several years. He first filed O.A.No. 922 of 1989 impugning alterations of the seniority, which was dismissed. Yet again he filed another O.A.No. 460 of 1990 questioning the seniority assigned to him on 23-2-1989, which application was again dismissed on 10-6-1983 upon considering the merits of the matter. He filed Miscellaneous Application in the aforementioned application in O.A.No. 460 of 1990 questioning the proposed recovery from his pay as regards the overpayment made to him. The said M.A., was also dismissed. The petitioner filed a review petition in the aforementioned case and certain interim orders have been passed. Pursuant thereto, he had been receiving his salary at the refixed scale.