1

Item No. 01

O.A. No. 3172/2022

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI

O.A. No.3172/2022

This the 01^st day of November, 2022

Hon’ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J)

M. Subramony,

Retired Section Officer, Group-B,

S/o Late Shri. S.M. Swamy,

Flat No.292-D, Pocket-C,

Mayur Vihar Phase-II, Delhi-110001.

…Applicant

(By Advocate: Ms. Shashi Panwar)

Versus

1. The Chief Secretary,

GNCT of Delhi,

Players Building, Delhi Secretariat,

IP Estate, New Delhi.

2. The Medical Superintendent,

Lal Bhadur Shastri Hospital,

GNCT of Delhi, Kichirpur,

Delhi-110091.

3. The Secretary,

Health & Family Welfare Department,

GNCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat,

Players’ building, IP Estate,

New Delhi.

…Respondents

(By Advocates: Mr. Amit Yadav)

2

Item No. 01

O.A. No. 3172/2022

ORDER (ORAL)

The reliefs sought by the applicant in the present O.A.

are reproduced below verbatim:-

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

applicant retired from service on 31.03.2021 on attaining

the age of superannuation. It is informed by the

respondents that his pay was wrongly fixed in the year

2015 and subsequently deducted a sum of Rs.3,90,000/-

from his gratuity. Consequent upon the same, the

applicant represented before the respondents to refund a

sum of Rs.3,90,000/-, relying upon the judgment passed

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, titled Thomas Daniel Vs.

State of Kerala reported in Civil Appeal No. 7115 of 2010,

holding that recovery cannot be made after retirement of

the employee. Furthermore, it is submitted that the

3

Item No. 01

O.A. No. 3172/2022

impugned order is illegal, inasmuch as, the recovery made

from the pensionary benefits of Government Servants, who

are on the verge of retirement or have been retired, is illegal

and impermissible, as held in O.A. No.970/2018 and O.A.

No.971/2018 by the Maharashra Administrative Tribunal

and also by the Hon’ble High Court at Bombay in W.P.

No.6004 of 2021. The representation of the applicant had

not been considered by the respondents. Feeling aggrieved,

he has approached this Tribunal seeking the aforesaid

reliefs.

3.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has

relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex

Court titled Chandi Prasad Uniyal vs. State of

Uttrakhand and High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs.

Jagdev Singh. He fought the matter tooth and nail.

4. Heard both the parties at length and perused the

records, and appreciated the legal position involved.

4

Item No. 01

O.A. No. 3172/2022

5. In the case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala

(Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

5

Item No. 01

O.A. No. 3172/2022

6

Item No. 01

O.A. No. 3172/2022

6. It is observed that this matter is no longer res integra.

The only objection respondents have depicted is that it is a

judgment in personam whereas this Tribunal has a vibrant

view that being a binding precedent under Article 141 of

the Constitution of India, the judgments of the Hon’ble

7

Item No. 01

O.A. No. 3172/2022

Supreme Court are binding on all courts subordinate to it

and even to the respondents’ authorities. Since the

aforesaid judgments on which the learned counsel for the

respondents has relied upon is prevailed over by the latest

judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thomas

Daniel Vs. State of Kerala (Supra), the O.A. deserves to

be allowed. Hence, the respondents are directed to refund

the amount of Rs.3,90,000/- recovered from the gratuity of

the applicant, within a period of 60 days from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this Order, failing which

interest @ 6% shall be liable to be paid to him.

7. With this observation, the O.A. is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(Ashish Kalia)

Member (J)

/yaksh/