Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B. K. Shrivastava, Member (J), Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
A Rajeswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. erroneous pay fixation on promotion undetected for years. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. respondents argue senior position bars recovery protection. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 3. recovery impermissible near retirement or after 5 years excess. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. no fraud proven; applicant acted bona fide. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. orders set aside, recovery stopped, amounts refunded. (Para 19) |
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
(i) “Set aside the Impugned Order dated 14.11.2023 bearing Ref. No. ADMN.20036/1/2022/9955 (Annexure-A1) passed by the Respondent No. 3;
(ii) Set aside communication dated 15.03.2023 bearing reference F.No. Admn -20036/1/2022 issued by the Respondent No. 3; (ANNEXURE A4).
(iii) Set aside Office Order dated 01.04/05.2023 bearing No. NWDA/IC/Admn./F.09/2022/789-94 passed by the Respondent No. 5 (Annexure-A5).
(iv) Issue directions restraining the Respondents from initiating any action or proceedings seeking recovery of any alleged excess amounts that may have been paid to the Applicant as a result of the revisi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
