Page No.# 1/3 vs Ayub Hussain
2023 Latest Caselaw 3350 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010170512023




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/4528/2023

            UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
            REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, (SECTION-II),
            DOORDARSHAN, DOORDARSHAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001

            2: THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (P) (NER)
             DOORDARSHAN
             R.G. BARUAH ROAD
             GUWAHATI-781024

            3: THE STATION DIRECTOR
            ALL INDIA RADIO
             CHANDMARI
             GUWAHATI-781003

            4: THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER (NER)
             DOORDARSHAN COMPLEX
             R.G. BARUAH ROAD
             GUWAHATI-78102

            VERSUS

            AYUB HUSSAIN
            S/O LATE TAYEB ALI, R/O HEDAYATPUR, HOUSE NO. 26, GUWAHATI-781003



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B CHAKRAVARTY

Advocate for the Respondent : M ALAMGEER




                                   BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
                                                                        Page No.# 2/3

                   HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

                                      ORDER

25.08.2023 (KR Surana, J)

Heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. AHMR Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. On the ground that the respondent was wrongly given the benefit of

3rd MACP vide order dated 31.03.2015 on which date the petitioner was stated to have not been entitled to the said benefit, the petitioners had taken steps to recall the financial benefit granted to the respondents for the period between 01.04.2015 to 17.02.2018. Aggrieved by the said action of the authorities, the petitioners had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati by filing OA no.040/00106/2020 which was allowed by the impugned order dated 21.02.2023. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The admission of this writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent by placing reliance in the case of State Of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015 (4) SCC 334 and Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 521.

4. In this writ petition, the petitioners have taken a plea that under the provisions of Rule 71 of CCS (Pension), Rules, 1972, the petitioners are empowered to realize excess payment made to the respondents. It is submitted Page No.# 3/3

that the cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondents is distinguishable from the facts because in those judgments, the provision of Rule 71 of the 1972 Rules was not considered and accordingly, it is submitted that the ratio of the cited cases cannot be applied in the distinguishable facts of the present case.

5. Issue notice returnable in 2(two) weeks, without requiring the petitioners to take fresh steps as the respondents have already entered appearance.

6. Affidavit if any be filed at least 2(two) days prior to the next date of listing.

7. The interim order passed earlier stands extended till the next date of listing.

8. List the matter after 2(two) weeks.

                                   JUDGE                            JUDGE



Comparing Assistant