UNION OF INDIA & ORS. vs RAJESH KUMAR

Judgment text excerpt

$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 16.10.2025 + W.P.(C) 16050/2025 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr.Piyush Gupta, CGSC with Mr.Atishay Jain, Ms.Yamini Bansal, Advs. with Mr.Kapil Naik, CLO Northern Railway. versus RAJESH KUMAR .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 65756/2025 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 16050/2025 & CM APPL. 65757/2025 2. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.3143/2018, titled Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., allowing the O.A. filed by the respondent herein, with the following directions: “4.3 In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the OA is allowed in the following terms:- (i) The order dated 25.06.2018 is quashed. (ii) The respondents are directed to pay the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16050/2025 Page 1 of 2 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:17.10.2025 20:29:30 recovered amount i.e. Rs. 71,268/- along with applicable GPF interest to the applicant. (iii) The said exercise should be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 3. Admittedly, the respondent had been granted promotion to the post of Head Clerk in the Grade Pay of Rs.5000-8000 in the parent cadre under NBR with effect from 31.12.1997 and the benefit of pay fixation was extended by the petitioners to the respondent on 13.10.1998. It was only at the time of his retirement in the year 2017, that the petitioners stated that the respondent had been irregularly granted exces