AMAR SINGH YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the office order A No. 03/2019-20/242-Accounts dtd. 17/1/2020 issued by respondent No. 4 whereby recovery of Rs.3,54,098.00, on account of Children Education Allowance (CEA) reimbursed to the petitioner, has been ordered to be effected from the monthly salary of the petitioner and also of the order dtd. 4/3/2020 by virtue of which, the petitioner has been informed that 30 monthly installments comprising of 29 installments of Rs.11,804.00 each and last installment of Rs.11,782.00 shall be recovered from the salary of the petitioner w.e.f. February, 2020. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents to refund the amount deducted from the salary of the petitioner w.e.f. February 2020.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the writ petition on the grounds that the CEA with respect to his two children out of four children has been rightly claimed by the petitioner and the respondents have rightly reimbursed the same in favour of the petitioner. Abrupt recovery of the Children Education Allowance from the salary of the petitioner by the respondents is based upon wrong and incorrect appreciation of the spirit of the Office Memorandum No. 12011/03/2008-Estt. (Allowance) dtd. 2/9/2008. The petitioner has rightly claimed the CEA reimbursement with respect to his two children, therefore, the respondents are not legally justified in effecting recovery of the CEA reimbursement made in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated that the orders impugned are liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice, as no opportunity of being heard has been afforded to the petitioner before passing the orders impugned. It is stated that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dtd. 17/1/2020 has not been decided till date and also the decision of the appeal filed by the petitioner has not been communicated to the petitioner till date. It is further stated that the impugned orders are visiting the petitioner with penal consequences inasmuch as despite being fully entitled to Children Education Allowance reimbursement and reimbursement having been rightly made in favour of the petitioner, the respondents cannot recover the same back from the petitioner on the totally wrong and erroneous ground that the CEA reimbursement could have been claimed by the petitioner with respect to his two eldest children and not the younger children. The petitioner has placed on record the orders impugned and various communications.

(3.) Response stands filed by the respondents in which it has been stated that the petitioner has drawn Children Education Allowance(CEA) with effect from 1/4/2009 to 31/3/2019 as Rs.3,54,098.00. As per clarification given in G.I. of per. and Trg, O. M. No. 12011/16/2009-(Allowance) dtd. 13/11/2009, the CEA can be claimed for two elder surviving children only and CEA drawn by the petitioner for his younger children, namely, Komal Yadav and Jacky Yadav is not admissible to him. An order dtd. 17/1/2020 for recovery of Rs.3,54,098.00 was issued and before issuing the recovery, he was asked to explain under what circumstances he has drawn the Children Education Allowance. A reminder was also issued to the petitioner, but he did not reply and finally an order of recovery of Rs.3,54,098.00 was issued. The petitioner then appealed against the said order in appeal before DIGP GC CRPF, Hiranagar on 14/2/2020 which was considered and rejected by the DIG GC CRPF Hiranagar vide order dtd. 4/3/2020 and thereafter, the petitioner submitted demand for justice notice dtd. 20/7/2020 and same was replied by the Range Hiranagar vide letter dtd. 1/9/2020. Range Hiranagar has clarified that the order for recovery of CEA is justified and as per provision of law.