Rajwant Bahadur Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

K N Shrivastava, Member (A)

Through the medium of this O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(ii) That the withholding of salary of the Applicant by Respondent No.3 for the month of March, 2016 is arbitrary and/or illegal, with consequential relief."

The factual matrix of the case, as noticed from the records, is as under:-

2.1 The applicant joined the Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO) as Junior Scientific Officer on 23.01.1976. He secured his regular promotions and finally, got promoted to the Grade of Scientist "H‟ in the HAG + Grade in the pay scale of `67000-79000 (pre-revised). He retired from the service of DRDO on 31.03.2012.

2.2 The applicant was reemployed as Chairman of Centre for Personnel Talent Management (CEPTAM), a Unit of DRDO, with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post, for a period of 3 years or up to the age of 65 years or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

2.3 A decision of Government of India in the Department of Defence Research & Development communicated vide letter dated 28.03.2013 to Director General, DRDO regarding the re-appointment of the applicant, reads as under:-

"I am directed to convey the sanction of the President to the appointment of Shri R B Singh, Scientist "H‟ (Retd) as Chairman Centre for Personnel Talent Management (CEPTEM), DRDO, HQrs, New Delhi on re-employment basis in HAG scale of pay of Rs.67000-79000/- with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post, for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge of the post or upto the age of 65 years or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

The appointment of Shri R B Singh shall be subject to all terms and conditions as applicable in the case of re-employed Central Government pensioners. He shall be entitled to all facilities as admissible to officer of his rank and status.

The expenditure will be debitable to Major Head 2080, Minor Head 110(a) of Defence Services Research and Development.

This issues with the concurrence of the Ministry of Defence/Finance (R&D) vide their Dy No.381/DFA (R&D) dt 28 March, 2013."

(emphasis supplied)

2.4 The pay fixation order was also issued by the Department of Defence Research & Development vide letter dated 18.10.2013 addressed to the Director General, DRDO. The relevant portion of the pay fixation order is reproduced below:-

"I am directed to convey the sanction of the President for fixation of pay in respect of Sh. RB Singh, Sc "H‟ (Retd.) in the HAG Pay scale of `67,000-79000/- at `73,660/- (last basic pay drawn) wef 28 Mar 2013 in accordance with the provisions contained in Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) orders 1986 as amended. An amount of `36,830/- basic pension per month sanctioned to Sh. RB Singh will be deducted from the above pay. Sh. RB Singh will be permitted to draw separately any pension sanctioned to him and to retain any other form of retirement benefit wef 28 Mar 2013. Sh. RB Singh will not draw Dearness Relief on pension with effect from 28 Mar 2013 during the period of his re-employment."

(emphasis supplied)

2.5 Apparently, despite stipulation in the pay fixation order that the applicant shall not draw dearness relief on pension during the period of his reemployment, he was paid the dearness relief. Consequently, the respondents, vide impugned Annexure A-1 letter dated 04.08.2016, have called upon the applicant to refund the excess payment made to him towards dearness relief on his pension during the period of reemployment. This excess amount has been worked out as `13.93 lacs.

Aggrieved by Annexure A-1 letter dated 04.08.2016, the applicant has filed the instant O.A. praying for the relief, as indicated in paragraph (1) above.

The O.A. was taken up for admission on 24.05.2018. The notices were issued to the respondents, which were received by Mr. Gyanendra Singh, learned standing counsel for Union of India. Considering the nature of the controversy involved, the Tribunal felt that this O.A. can be disposed of at the admission stage itself without insisting on a reply from the respondents.

Mr. Vaibhav Pratap Singh, learned counsel for applicant argued that the respondent No.3 had proceeded on wrong premise that the applicant has been reemployed with them. He submitted that the applicant was, in fact, appointed afresh on direct recruitment basis by the President of India, as Chairman, CEPTAM, for which due approval of Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) was obtained. He further contended that the applicant has not indulged into any misrepresentation for securing any excess payment. He relied on the following judgments of Hon‟ble Supreme Court to say that no recovery is required to be made from the applicant for excess payment:

i) R.P. Kalia v. Union of India & another, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12571,

ii) Bhagwan Shukla s/o Sarabjit Shukla v. Union of India & others, (1994) 6 SCC 154,

iii) Babulal Jain v. State of M.P. & others, (2007) 6 SCC 180; and

iv) State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others, (2015) 4 SCC 334.

We are not amused by the arguments of learned counsel for applicant. The applicant had held a very high position in DRDO and after his retirement as Scientist "H", he was appointed as Chairman, CEPTAM, for a tenure of three years. The DRDO letter dated 28.03.2013 appointing the applicant to the post of Chairman, CEPTAM and thereafter its letter dated 18.10.2013 fixing his pay, leaves no room for any confusion that applicant"s appointment as Chairman, CEPTAM was on reemployment basis. The letter of Department of Defence Research & Development dated 18.10.2013 clearly stipulates that the applicant will not draw dearness relief on pension during the period of reemployment. It is not in dispute that the applicant has been paid dearness relief on pension during the reemployment period. The applicant was well aware that dearness relief on pension was being paid to him, to which he was not entitled. He never advised the concerned officers in the Accounts Wing to make necessary correction. No doubt, on 02.11.2013, he had intimated to the Manager, State Bank of India, KV-II, Noida that during the period of his reemployment, he ceases to draw the dearness relief. As a senior officer, it was his duty to ensure that he is not paid any excess amount, to which he was not entitled. No doubt, blames also lie with the Department as well as the Bank in paying the dearness relief on pension to the applicant.

We have gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for applicant but we are of the view these judgments would not come to the rescue of the applicant. Here is a case, where a very senior class-I officer of the Government, knowing fully well that he is being paid dearness relief on pension, to which he was not entitled, does nothing to ensure that the excess amount is not credited to his account. As a matter of fact, this excess amount was being paid to him every month as a part of his salary bill. It is the duty of a government officer and more particularly, a senior class-I officer, to see he does not derive any unmerited gain from the exchequer.

From the perusal of the records, we are fully convinced that the applicant was having full knowledge of the fact that he was being paid dearness relief on his pension, to which he was not entitled. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the Annexure A-1 letter dated 04.08.2016 of the respondents seeking recovery of `13.93 lacs from the applicant towards excess payment made to him.

Accordingly, we dismiss this O.A. finding it devoid of any merit. No costs.