AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
17 paragraphs · 336 wordsL. Narasimha Reddy, J
The applicant retired from Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 31.07.2015, on attaining the age of superannuation. In the context of extending
the retiral benefits to the applicant, the respondents withheld a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from his gratuity, and in addition to that, they sought recovery of a
sum of Rs.1,73,503/-. Aggrieved by that, the applicant filed O.A. No.3329/2019. That was disposed of on 20.11.2019 directing the respondents to
furnish the reasons, that prompted them to withhold Rs.5 lakhs and to recover a sum of Rs.1,73,503/-. The applicant, was also permitted to make
representation. This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents did not implement the orders of the Tribunal passed in the O.A.
We heard Shri T D Yadav, learned counsel for applicant and Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee and Shri J P Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents, through
video conferencing.
The applicant has a grievance about non-payment of retiral benefits, and effecting recovery. The respondents ordered recovery on the ground that
he was wrongly granted the increments and promotion. The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. permitting the applicant to file a representation. It seems
that the applicant made a representation dated 31.01.2020 in this behalf. In reply to the same, the respondents passed an order dated 11.03.2020
informing the applicant that the recovery is made on account of the fact that he was wrongly given the periodical increments and promotion, though he
did not pass the departmental examination, which was essential, and that the exemption from passing that examination was granted to him only on
31.07.2012. Accordingly, the benefits of increments and promotion extended to the applicant between 01.08.1982 and 30.07.2012 were recovered.
The respondents contend that such a course of action is in accordance with law. The order dated 11.03.2020 cannot be assailed in this contempt case.
We, therefore, close the C.P., leaving it open to the applicant to pursue the remedies vis-Ã -vis the order dated 11.03.2020. There shall be no order
as to costs.