CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CORAM:

Reserved on 15.01.2026 Pronounced on 21.0 1.2026 THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)

THE HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)

Subhash Chandra Pattanaik, aged about 67 years, son of Late Shri Trinath Pattanaik, Retd. as Driver, ICMR and permanent resident rd of At-Niladri Vuhar (3 Line), PO/PS- Berhampur, Dist. Ganjam, Odisha, PIN-

760001. VERSUS ……Applicant

1. Union of India, represented through the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, At- Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, PIN-

110001.

2. Director General & Secretary, Department of Health Research, Indian Council of Medical Research, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, PIN-

110029.

3. Director, National Institute of Malaria Research, Sector-8, Dwaraka, New Delhi, PIN-

110077.

4. Administrative Officer, National Institute of Malaria Research, Sector-8, Dwaraka, New Delhi. PIN-110077.

……Respondents For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel RAVI KUMAR For the respondents : Mr. B.Samantaray, Counsel O R D E R PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

Facts remain that in the afternoon of 31.10.2017 the applicant, Sri Subhash Cahndra Pattnaik, while working as Driver in ICMR, retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation. An amount of Rs. 2,44,314/- was withheld from his DCRG on the ground that he while working at Rourkela under the ICMR occupied quarters of SAIL from 20.03.2008 to 28.09.2017 and, at the same time drew HRA from ICMR which is contrary to Rules. According to the Applicant, such withholding of Rs. 2,44,314/- from his DCRG drives him into starvation due to financial difficulties and, that drawal of HRA from ICMR cannot be faulted with when he was paying the necessary rent and other allied charges to the SAIL authority as per the agreement made with him with the SAIL.

2. The respondents have filed their counter objecting the very maintainability and sustainability of the OA being hit by law of limitation provided u/s. 21 of the A.T. Act, 1985 as also stating that they have not recovered the said amount from the DCRG of the applicant rather they withheld the same awaiting final decision of the competent authority in respect of many employees including the present applicant. It has been stated that justifiability or otherwise of making recovery for drawl of HRA while in occupation of the quarters owned and provided by the SAIL came up for judicial scrutiny before this Bench in OA No 542/2020 (Gopal Krushna padhi Vs ICMR) and this Bench vide order dated 17.11.2023 did not incline to interfere on the recovery and, accordingly, the OA was dismissed. It is stated that the present case being one and the same, is liable to be dismissed.

3. Heard. Perused the records.

4. We find that there is no need for elaborate discussion and deliberation of the facts and issuOesA inNvoo.l v3e4d9 i/n2 0th2e4 p(rDeusregnat cMaased;h asbin Pcea dihni vssi mUiOlaIr & mOartst)e r i.e.

wherein this Bench after dealing with all the points raised by the Respondents, allowed the OA vide order dated 21.01.2026 , relevant portion of the order is quoted b“e3l.o w…:… ……Hence, according to him, there is no delay and, in argumendo, even if there is any delay, this being a recurring cause of action, delay should not stand on the way for the relief, unlike the present case, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.R.Gupta Vs UOI & Ors, 1996 AIR 669. We have examined the matter, keeping in mind the facts and law stated above, and do not find any merit to uphold the stand point of the respondents that this OA being hit by limitation is liable to be dismissed.

4. After hearing Ld. Counsel for the parties, we have perused the records.

5. In the given circumstances stated above vis a vis the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.R.Gupta Vs UOI & Ors, 1996 AIR 669, we do not find any force on the stand of the respondents to hold that the OA is hit by law of limitation, hence, this objection of the respondents is overruled.

6. It is a settled principle of