DALIP KUMAR vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13336/2023 DALIP KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Singal, Adv. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak, SPC with Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 03.03.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal1 by way of OA 147/2017, challenging an order dated 30 May 2016, whereby the petitioner’s pay was re-fixed with effect from 24 November 1997, as well as the recovery, on that basis, from the retiral benefits of the petitioner, of an amount of ₹ 2,21,036/-. 2. The Tribunal has allowed the OA in part, by quashing and setting aside the order dated 30 May 2016. However, the Tribunal has granted no relief with respect to the recovery of ₹ 2,21,036/- which was effected from the petitioner’s retiral benefits. 3. The petitioner had, before the Tribunal, invoked para 18 of the 1 “the Tribunal” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 13336/2023 Page 1 of 3 KUMAR Signing Date:06.03.2025 17:44:06 judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Rafiq Masih2. Apropos this judgment, the Tribunal holds in para 4.1 thus: “4.1 On perusal of the record, we find that the applicant has himself admitted that consequent upon imposition of punishment of forfeiture of 2 years’ approved service permanently, his pay was correctly fixed by the respondents. However, he is aggrieved by recovery of Rs.2,21,036/- on account of alleged incorrect re- fixation of his pay on account of separate punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service temporarily for one year. It is noticed that the applicant has been awarded punishment twice in two dif