[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors vs Suresh Kumar Rajput on 6 April, 2026
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2997/2026, CM APPL. 14470/2026, CM APPL.
14471/2026, CM APPL. 21716/2026, CM APPL. 21717/2026,
CM APPL. 21718/2026, CM APPL. 21719/2026 & CM APPL.
21720/2026
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr Yeeshu Jain, ASC, Ms Jyoti
Tyagi, Mr Sachin Garg and Ms Vishruti
Pandey, Advs.
versus
SURESH KUMAR RAJPUT .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Harish Kumar Karwal and
Mr. Dhurendra Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
ORDER (ORAL)
% 06.04.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
W.P.(C) 2997/2026 & CM APPL. 21716/2026
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 11 November
2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 2183/2024
and OA 804/2025. However, the challenge is essentially to the order
passed in OA 2183/2024.
2. OA 2183/2024 was directed against the action of the petitioners
in discontinuing payment of certain allowances which were being paid
to the respondent consequent to the decision of the Principal Secretary
W.P.(C) 2997/2026
of the petitioners taken on 4 April 2022.
3. Consequent thereon, the petitioners also proceeded to effect
recoveries from the respondent.
4. The Tribunal has held that recoveries could not be made and,
insofar as the decision to revisit the respondent's entitlements are
concerned, the petitioners have been given an opportunity to issue a
notice to the respondent, afford him a chance to respond thereto and
thereafter reconsider the decision.
5. So far as the aspect of recovery is concerned, the respondent is
clearly not at fault in the payments which were made to him which
were taken in accordance with the decision of the Principal Secretary
of the petitioner who is the highest hierarchical executive authority.
6. The judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq
Masih1, in para 18, while enumerating the instances in which recovery
would not be permissible, has also allowed the Court to set aside
recoveries in deserving instances other than those specifically
enumerated in the said paragraph.
7. We are clear that, as the decision to pay the respondent was in
accordance with the decision of the Principal Secretary, any recoveries
from the respondent at this stage would be completely inequitable and
unjust.
1 (2015) 4 SCC 334
W.P.(C) 2997/2026
8. We hold accordingly.
9. Insofar as the aspect of revisiting the respondent's entitlements
are concerned, in view of the liberty already granted by the Tribunal,
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned CGSC for the petitioners submits that his
client would act in accordance with the said liberty and afford an
opportunity to the respondent before taking any action on the
respondent's entitlement.
10. In that view of the matter, no further orders are required to be
passed in this writ petition, which is accordingly disposed of.
11. Needless to say, should the respondent continue to be aggrieved
by any decision taken by the respondent in accordance with the order
passed by the Tribunal, the right of the respondent in law shall remain
reserved.
12. All pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
APRIL 6, 2026/dsn
W.P.(C) 2997/2026
