Central Administrative Tribunal (RESERVED)

Jammu Bench, Jammu Hearing through video conferencing Original Application No. 61/1028/2022 Pronounced on: - This the 26^th day of November 2024 HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)

1. Suraj Parkash Age 66 years S/o Sh. Birbal R/o Kalyanpur Jhiri Tehsil Marh District Jammu, 181206.

....Applicant (Through Advocate: Mr. Abimanyu Sharma Versus

1. Union Territory of J&K Through Commissioner Secretary to Govt.

Jal Shakti Public Health Engineering Department Civil Secretariat, Jammu-180001 Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation Email:- pscsphe@gmail.com

2. Chief Engineer, PHE, B.C. Road, Jammu, 180001.

3. Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Division Akhnoor District Jammu-180001

4. Accountant General, J&K Rajpura, Canal Road, Jammu-180001 ….Respondents (Through Advocate: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned D.A.G.

Mr. Sumant Sudan

O R D E R

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 making therein the following reliefs: -

“i. Seeking to quash Communication No. JS/PHEDA/3346-48 dated 23.06.2022 from Executive Engineer Jalshakti, (PHE) Division Akhnoor, whereby and whereunder, the applicant has been informed that his "claim of outstanding amount of Rs 397725/- as salary arrears" was not due to the applicant;

ii. Seeking to quash Department J&K Union Finance Territory order No. A/Codes/ Pension / 2202- 166 dated 11.02.2021, where under threat has been extended to the DDOs that in case of grant of benefit to the retirees under SRO 59 dated 06.02.1990, recovery shall be made from the salary of the DDO, in case SRO 59 is wrongly applied, to the extent, this threat is looming large on the head of the DDO of the applicant, even when benefit of SRO 59 has not been extended to the applicant and because of this threat, an amount of Rs. 3,97,725/-of salary arrearof the applicant is being withheld;

iii. Seeking to quash entry made at page No. 31 of the Service Book of the applicant to the extent it is mentioned therein that the applicant be "placed in the pay scale of 950- 1500 on notional basis w.e.f. 18.02.1993 "without salary arrears";

iv. Seeking to quash impugned letter No. JS / PHEDA /

10630-32 dated 04.12.2021 of respondent no. 3, addressed to respondent No. 2, whereby and whereunder respondent no. 2 (Chief Engineer PHE) has been informed that the outstanding amount of Rs. 3,97,725/- was not due to the applicant on account of entry made at page no. 31 of the Service Book of the applicant;

v. Commanding and directing the respondents to release the outstanding arrears of Rs. 3,97,725/- due to the applicant (as calculated in due drawn statement);

vi. With further direction to pay interest (at market rate) on the above referred outstanding amount of Rs. 3,97,725/- w.e.f.

the date, the amount became due to the applicant.”

2. We have considered the assertions made by each party and examined the documentation on file.

3. The issue involved in the present case has already been dealt with by this Court while deciding similar cases of recovery, so the instant case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in those cases, O.A. No. 61/1284/2021 being the lead case, titled ‘Parveen Singh Versus U.T. of J&K and Ors.’, decided on 18.09.2024, operative portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow: -

“20. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussions and judicial pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the action of the respondents in making recovery from the applicants (who are Group-III & IV employees) and refixing their pay/pension, that too, after lapse of considerable period of time, is grossly arbitrary and illegal and also suffers from the voice of non-adherence of principle of natural justice and hence the same cannot sustain.

21. In view of the above discussions and facts and circumstances of the case, the following directions are pas