UNION OF INDIA Vs. C SAMUEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by order dated 10-1-2004 passed in o. A. No. 796/2003 the Union of India and its authorities have filed this petition before this Court on the ground that the tribunal, while allowing the petition filed by the respondent, has wrongly granted relief of quashment of the order directing recovery of the amount wrongly paid to the respondent.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the respondent initially joined the income Tax Department as a stenographer (Ordinary Grade) on 26-5-1979. Subsequent thereto, he participated in a qualifying examination in which he qualified only for appointment to the post of L. D. C. and was thereafter appointed as L. D. C. specifically on the basis of the willingness and consent given by him on 11-4-1986 for appointment as L. D. C. He was subsequently regularized on this post with effect from 8-41986. On 1-3-1985 the petitioner-authorities directed the respondent to submit the joining report as L. D. C. which was submitted by the respondent on 28-3-1985 under protest as his representation for regularisation on the post of stenographer was pending before the authorities. Thereafter, the authorities passed an order dated 5-10-2000 appointing the respondent as an L. D. C. on regular basis. Vide order dated 15-3-2002 the petitioner-authorities granted pay protection to the respondent as the salary being paid to him as a stenographer was more than the pay for the post of L. D. C. However, in view of an audit objection dated 24-9-2002 the order of pay protection was set at naught and it has been directed to fix the pay of the respondent on the post of L. D. C. with effect from 8-4-1986 in the minimum of the pay-scale i. e. Rs. 950-1500 and recover the balance amount which had been paid as per pay fixation order dated 15-3-2002. Being aggrieved by the said audit note the respondent had filed a petition before the Central administrative Tribunal to protect the pay drawn by him in the cadre of stenographer (O. G.) till he reaches the same grade of pay by earning increments or promotion and had also prayed for quashing the audit note. As the petition has been allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned order, the respondent-authorities have filed the present petition before this Court.

(3.) THE short issue raised by the petitioners before this Court is as to whether the Tribunal has erred in law in prohibiting the petitioner-authorities from recovering the excess amount paid to the respondent by treating him to be a stenographer although he was only entitled to the pay of an L. D. C. and whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in protecting the pay of the respondent as stenographer even in future.