The Union Of India Through The ... vs Chandra Prakash Yadav S/O Shri ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 405 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 744/2022

1.     The Union Of India Through The General Manager, West
       Central Zone, West Central Railway Jabalpur (MP).
2.     General      Manager       (Establishment),               Western   Railway,
       Church Gate, Mumbai.
3.     Chief Works Manager (Work Shop), West Central Railway,
       Kota Division, Kota.
                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.     Chandra Prakash Yadav S/o Shri V.P. Yadav, Aged About
       59 Years, Resident of House No. 14 Gali No 4, Poonam
       Colony, Kota Junction, Kota. Presently Working As Chief
       Office Superintendent, Office of Chief Works Manager
       (Work Shop) West Central Railway, Kota Division, Kota.
2.     Umrao Singh Meena S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Meena,
       Aged About 60 Years, Resident of House No. 249 Gali No.
       4, Saraswati Colony, Kota Junction, Kota. Presently
       Working As Chief Office Superintendent, Office of Chief
       Works Manager (Work Shop) West Central Railway, Kota
       Division, Kota.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aslam Khan, Advocate through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Judgment / Order

18/01/2022

Heard on admission.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is

preferred against the part of the order by which the Tribunal has

set aside and quashed the action of the petitioners in so far as the

recovery of excess payment has been ordered.

(2 of 3) [CW-744/2022]

Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India argued in

vehemence stating that the respondents employees enjoyed

erroneous fixation and higher pay knowing fully that they could

not be granted higher pay. He would further submit that

subsequently where litigation was brought to the record, interim

orders were also passed, but the employees continued to get the

payments. He would submit that this conduct on the part of the

employees clearly shows that they guilty of misrepresentation,

therefore, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih

(2015) 4 SCC 334 will have no application and the recovery was

justified.

The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is

bereft of any material. Averments and the stand taken by the

petitioners have been considered by the Tribunal in Para 7 of the

order. The petitioners came out with the case that the pay fixation

of the applicant was made erroneously which was occasioned by

the fact that the Railway Board circular dated 17.08.1998, was not

available with the petitioners at the time of making fixation and

therefore, an erroneous fixation came to be made. Subsequently,

when Railway Board circular dated 22.04.1999 clarified that those

employees who were getting Special Pay of Rs.70/- prior to

01.01.1996, their pay fixation in the 5th Central Pay Commission

was to be effected in terms of Rule7(1)(B) of the RSRP Rules,

1997, appropriate fixation of pay was done.

The Tribunal, has partly allowed the original application filed

by the respondent's employee. While the Tribunal has held that

the fixation of pay was erroneous and the action of the petitioners

in so far as revision of pay fixation is concerned, has not been

(3 of 3) [CW-744/2022]

interfered with, the Tribunal has relied upon the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) to quash

the action in so far as recovery is concerned.

There is hardly any material to show that the respondents-

employee was guilty of misrepresentation. It was the case of the

petitioners themselves before the Tribunal that pay fixation was

as a result of erroneous interpretation and that subsequently a

clarification was made by the Railway Board vide circular dated

22.04.1999. On the face of specific stand taken before the

Tribunal, in our opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error

of jurisdiction in arriving at the conclusion that the present case is

covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Rafiq Masih (supra). The Tribunal's order to that extent

does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or patent legality or

illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of

supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India.

The view taken by the Tribunal with regard to recovery not

suffering from any of the errors which should be corrected under

supervisory jurisdiction, we are not inclined to interfere with the

recovery part.

This petition is dismissed.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

Mohita/6

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)