R N PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions are directed against the order dated 20.7.2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 372 of 2004 (R.N. Prasad V/s. Union of India and Ors.). C.W.J.C. No. 12376 of 2008 is at the instance of the employee, and C.W.J.C. No. 2815 of 2 006, is at the instance of the Railways. None appears for the employee in both the cases. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha for the Railway and its functionaries in C.W.J.C. No. 12376 of 2008, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 2815 of 2006.

(2.) The employee had earlier preferred O.A. No. 935 of 2000, seeking the relief that he may be granted increment at par with one S.N. Mishra, and for the further relief that he should not be required to refund the allegedly excess payment made to him while in service. O.A. No. 935 of 2000 was disposed of by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, by order dated 8.9.2003, whereby the authorities were directed to dispose of the grievances of the employee by a reasoned order. The same was rejected by order dated 7.2.2004, leading to the present O.A. No. 372 of 2004, which has been allowed in part by order dated 20.7.2005. The learned Tribunal has held that S.N. Mishra was given the increment in time, whereas the present employee lagged behind because a punishment had been inflicted on him. The learned Tribunal, therefore, concluded that this part of the claim can not be granted. The employee has, therefore, preferred C.W.J.C. No. 12376 of 2008 against first part of the order whereby he has not been allowed parity with S.N. Mishra. 2.1. As to the second relief prayed for by the present employee, his pay was fixed at Rs. 640/- which he continued to draw till superannuation on 1.6.2000, where after the authorities realized that his pay ought to have been fixed at Rs. 620/-. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 39,970/- was recovered from his post-retirement benefits. The learned Tribunal has held that the excess payment was made to the employee for no fault like fraud, misrepresentation, or the like was attributable to him. The respondent authorities have, therefore, been directed to refund a sum of Rs. 39,970/- with interest. The Railways have filed the said C.W.J.C. No. 2815 of 2006, whereby they have been directed to refund a sum of Rs. 39,970/-.

(3.) We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the Tribunal has rightly held that the employee can not be granted increment at par with S.N. Mishra, because a punishment has been inflicted on the present employee. Therefore, this part of the order cannot be faulted. C.W.J.C. No. 12376 of 2008 is hereby rejected.