Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1081120/2008 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10811 of 2008
======================================
UNION
OF INDIA
THROUGH
GENERAL MANAGER & ANOTHER
Versus
GANESHDUTT
J VAISHITH
======================================
Appearance
:
MRS KRISHNA G RAWAL for the
Petitioners
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 09/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. The
petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 18.4.2007 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the petitioner was only
directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the respondent before
effecting recovery of the payments made under an order of stepping up
in service, which was alleged to have been wrongly granted. The
petitioner has also further prayed to quash another order dated
27.7.2007 of the Tribunal in two other applications whereby the
application to review the former order dated 18th April
2007 is dismissed. The first impugned order dated 18th
April 2007 was made in O.A.No.658 of 2005 wherein grievance was made
by the original applicant about withholding of Rs.1,13,591/- from the
settlement dues payable to him. And, by the impugned order,
direction was given to afford an opportunity of hearing expressly
granting liberty to pass order for recovery after proper opportunity
was afforded to the original applicant. It appears that thereafter
review application was filed apparently for deducting the amount
alleged to be due from the retiral benefits payable to the original
applicant. Therefore, after adverting to Rule 15(2) of the Railway
Servant (Pension) Rules, the Tribunal found that the alleged dues on
account of earlier stepping up was not ascertained and adjusted
before the date of superannuation and hence the amount could not be
withheld. The review application was found to be an attempt to
re-argue the original application No.658 of 2005.
2. It
was clear that final directions issued in para 10 of the order dated
18.4.2007 in O.A.No.658 of 2005 are neither disturbed nor set aside
and appropriate orders are required to be made in compliance thereof.
Thereafter if any amount is found and held to be due from the
original applicant, the appellant is at liberty to recover the same
in accordance with law. However, there is no reason to set aside
either of the impugned orders so as to permit withholding or recovery
of any amount by the appellant even before appropriate orders are
made by the authority as directed in the impugned order dated
18.4.2007.
3. The
petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to
costs.
(Bhagwati
Prasad, J.)
(D.H.Waghela,
J.)
*mohd
Top