ORDER (ORAL)

Per: Dinesh Sharma, Member (A):

The Miscellaneous Application (No.198/2019) has been filed by Respondents No.2 and 3 for vacating this Tribunal’s interim order dated 31.07.2018 by which the recovery pursuant to order dated 21.06.2018 (Annexure A/1) was stayed. It is stated that the Respondents No.2 and 3 have already filed a detailed reply to the OA which will show that the applicant does not have a prima facie case nor does the balance of convenience lie in her favour. The department will suffer irreparable loss if the stay order is not vacated.

(2)

2. The learned counsel for the Respondents No.2 and 3 (MA applicant) argued that a wrong pay fixation was done due to a wrong interpretation of order dated 07.04.2017. This was corrected by the impugned order 21.06.2018. The applicant has not assailed the legality and validity of the OM on the basis of which the correction has been made. The applicant being a high ranking officer who has herself given an undertaking for recovery in case of wrong payment, cannot get protection from recovery of excess amounts paid from the public exchequer. Other, similarly placed employees have agreed to the recovery of similarly made excess pa