Vijay Kumar v. Chief Secretary Government Of Nct Of Delhi

By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): The applicants, on their redeployment, were appointed in the posts of Gr-IV(DASS)/LDCs in the respondent department. They were required to pass/qualify Type Test within a period of one year from the date of their joining, to enable them to draw the annual increments. On the ground that they passed the Type Tests conducted by Language Department, they were allowed to draw the annual increments w.e.f. 01.05.2002 and 01.07.2001 respectively, along with so many other similarly situated persons, though the requirement is to pass the same in the tests conducted by the Directorate of Training and Technical Education, GNCT, Delhi, which is an approved agency.

2. After issuing show cause notices and after considering the representations made by the applicants, the respondents passed orders that the applicants and others are not entitled for granting of increments and also for recovery of the excess payment. The applicants have not questioned the decision of the respondents that they are not entitled to draw the annual increments, but only questioned the recovery on the ground that there was no fault or misrepresentation on their part in drawing the excess amount and after a long lapse of time, if recovery is effected they will be put to hardship. They rely on a Coordinate Bench Judgement of this Tribunal in OA 1825/2007 (Radha Krishna v. Govt. of NCTD & Others) dated 14.05.2008 wherein the challenge to disentitlement of increments was dismissed but ordered not to make any recovery, in identical circumstances, with respect to their co-employee, by following the Honble Supreme Court Judgements in Shyam Babu Verma and Others v. Union of India & Others, (1994) 2 SCC 521

3. The respondents in their reply, though not disputed the aforesaid facts, but states that the judgement in Radha Krishnas case (supra) of this Tribunal cannot be made applicable to the applicants but not disputed the principle of law decided by the Honble Apex Court in Shyam Babu Verma (supra) and other subsequent decisions, as applied by this Tribunal in Radha Krishnas case (supra). Further, the respondents also failed to give any reasons how the case of the applicant is different from that of Radha Krishnas case (supra).

4. In these circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA is allowed as prayed for. No order as to costs. (V. N. Gaur) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) /nsnrvak/