At, Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. MANJULA DAS
By, JUDICIAL MEMBER
For the Applicant: R. Sarma, R.J. Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: ----
1. Being aggrieved with order/letter dated 01.01.2019; the applicant approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following reliefs:
“8.(a) Set aside the order/letter dated 1-1-2019 under memo No. RPAO/SRV/PEN/2018-19/1837
(b) The recovered amount of Rs. 1, 63,610/- (rupees one lakh sixty three thousand six hundred ten only) may be refunded to the applicant.
(c) The respondent may be directed to calculate and pay the pension amount to the applicant as per the basic pay @ Rs. 66, 000/- (Rupees sixty six thousand only) and pay the remaining amount to the applicant after such recalculation
(d) direct the respondent to pay compensation @ Rs. 10, 00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs only) for mental agony and suffering of the applicant.
2. Sri R. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant, who joined in service under the respondent department in the year 1983, was retired from service on superannuation on 28.02.2019. According to the learned counsel, the basic grievance of the applicant for filing the instant petition is that the respondents have illegally recovered an amount of Rs. 1, 63,610/- after retirement from his gratuity and reduced his basic pay from Rs. 66, 000/- to Rs. 64, 100/- in the last month of his service without issuing any show cause notice and consequently calculated his pension on the basis of that illegally fixed basic pay.
3. Learned counsel fairly contends that the case of the applicant is squarely covered with the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein it was held that – “recovery of excess payments discovered after five years would be iniquitous and arbitrary, and as such, violative of Article 14”.
4. In view of the above decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the intervention of this court is warranted. Moreover, the learned counsel fairly submitted that the applicant will be happy and satisfied if the case of the applicant is decided in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra).
5. In view of the above, without going into the merit of the case as well as without issuing notice to the respondents, I dispose of the O.A. with the dire
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt copy of this order. 6. No order as to costs.