- (1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to consider interference in the just and proper order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the CAT') in OA No.06/Jodhpur/2012.
(2.) THE applicant-respondent retired as Head Clerk from the office of Chief Works Manager, North Western Railway on 13.07.1988. A revised PPO was issued pursuant to implementation of 6th Pay Commission recommendations putting him in the scale of Rs.5000- 8000. Subsequently, it was sought to be alleged that the applicant had been incorrectly fixed; and while reducing the pension, consequential deduction orders were immediately issued. Admittedly, such orders for reduction and deductions were made without any notice to the applicant-respondent. In the OA filed by the applicant-respondent, the CAT considered the law applicable to the case that if deduction was at all to be made, a notice should have been issued to the applicant and he should have been given an opportunity of being heard. The CAT, accordingly, issued the following directions: "(i) No recovery should be made of the amount already paid as per Annex.A/3. (ii) The respondents will issue a notice and given to the applicant of being heard in case it is decided that his pension is to be reduced which should be reduced from the date of the said notice."
(3.) THE CAT further proceeded to clarify its order in the following:- "6. The learned counsel for applicant argued that the things are required to be clarified. It is further directed that the respondents will issue a show cause notice to the applicant within 15 days of this order and thereafter the applicant will get one months time to file reply and the matter will be decided by the respondents organization at the earliest possible date. The amount of recovery till the date of notice will stand refunded. The respondent organization will refund the amount to the applicant within a period of one month." Questioning the order aforesaid, it is sought to be contended that pension could only be claimed as of right as per the entitlement; and any error in respect of fixation will not extend any substantive right to receive erroneously enhanced pension. It is also submitted that even when the directions were issued for affording opportunity of hearing, simultaneous directions for refund of the amount already recovered is not legally sustainable. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors : (2012) 8 SCC 417 has been referred.;