Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, J, Pramod Kumar Das, A
Gangadhar Pati – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. retirement and overpayment challenges (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. adequate representation timing argument (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. limitations on delay applications (Para 6) |
| 4. delay application and main application dismissal (Para 7) |
……Respondents For the Applicant : Mr. S.K.Mishra, Counsel For the RespondenOts R D: ME rR. J .K.Nayak, Counsel PRAM OD KU M A R D A S, M EMBER (A):
The applicant retired from service on 29.02.2020. He was paid DCRG after deducting Rs. 1,94,845/- towards the excess payment wrongly made to him while fixing his pay upon his promotion from Group-B (Jr. Scale) to Group-B (Sr. Scale) vide order dated 06.02.2002. He made representation against such deduction on 28.02.2020, which was considered and rejected vide letter dated 04.05.2020. The applicant stated that he has submitted representations subsequently on 11.06.2020 and 12.08.2020, which was not admitted by the respondents in their reply. However, as admitted by both the parties, applicant submitted fresh representation on 12.02.2024. Thereafter, applicant has filed this OA on 19.11.2024 praying to quash the assessment sheet of statement of overpayment dated 27.02.2020 and to restore his pay from
01.04.2002 and
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
