Government of NCT Delhi v. Suresh Chand Khanna

1. The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi in this writ petition impugns the order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.1145/2011 to the extent that they have been restrained from recovery of salary paid from 01.09.2002 till Mr. Suresh Chand Khanna - the respondent retired from service on 31.08.2010.

2. As per the records ofthe petitioner, the date ofbirth ofthe respondent was 2.8.1950. On this basis, Mr. Suresh Chand Khanna - the respondent was retired from service on 31.8.2010. The respondent had asserted that his date ofbirth was 8.8.1956 and he would therefore, retire on 31.8.2016.

3. Mr. Suresh Chand Khanna - the respondent had filed OA NO. 1145/2011 praying for thefollowing reliefs:- "1. To pay the salary arrearsfor the month of September, 2010 to upto the date of keeping him out withoutjob; 2016:DHC:8971-DB H

2. To reconstruct the service book of applicant so that his qualifying service can be determined;

3. To reconstruct the GPFpassbookfrom the GPF statements/ledger and maintained by the GPF (cell) of Govt. ofNCT ofDelhi to enable the payment of GPF at the time of actual superannuation as per rules;

4. To allow the applicant the do in his duties and set aside the order of superannuation dt.3L[8].2010."

4. The Tribunal dismissed the OA with costs of Rs.5, 000/- against Mr Suresh Chand Khanna - the respondent.

5. The Tribunal in the impugned order has made observations that the actual date of birth of the respondent was 1.8.1942. This date of birth of 1.8.1942 was not the case set-up by the petitioner herein before the Tribunal, and was observed/noticed from the records available and shown to the Tribunal.

6. As far as the petitioner is concerned, they had recorded and accepted that the date of birth of the respondent was 2.8.1950. The petitioner had never claimed arrears of salary paid to the respondent till retirement on 31.8.2010. As per the petitioner, the respondent was superannuated on the correct date. The respondent had certainly worked up to 31.8.2010 and had performed and discharged his duties.

7. Possibly, the petitioner has filed the writ petition in view of the observations made in para 13 ofthe impugned order, which reads:- "Before we part with this order we would like to leave observationfor the second respondent to conduct a departmental enquiry/verification tofind out as to who are responsible for the loss or tampering of the applicant's service book which resulted in allowing the applicant to retire on 31.08.2010 instead of 31.08.2002, the due date. Responsibility may also be fixed on the officialsfor the said lapses and followed up with the action against them as appropriate under law."

8. This is a separate aspect. At the same time we would record that learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued that the directions given in para 13 ofthe impugnedorder shouldbe set aside or quashed.

9. J.n view of the aforesaid background, we are not inclined to interfere

V. with the impugned order to the extent that it has been directed that the petitioner cannot recover the salary paid to the respondent till he had demitted office on 31.8.2010. We clarify that we are not interfering with the direction given in para 13 ofthe impugned order.

10. The writ petition, being devoid ofmerit, is dismissed. -1/^, SANJIVKHANNA, J. WAZIRI, J.