Union Of India v. T.V.P. Latha
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
\ HIGH COURT FOR THE S'J rsr;;,, rr6l5i ;oi ]f,L$ry;",fli A r H YD E RABAD IHURSDAY, THE THIRT.Y FIRST DAY OF DECEI\IBER TWO THOUSAND AND rWCrVrT'"'
PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.233240F 2020 Between:
1. Union of lndia, Represented by the Secretary, tvinistry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi - 1 10 001.
2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, 1Oth Floor, C- Block, lncome Tax Towers, 10-2-3, A.C.Guards, It4asab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004.
3. The Chief Commissioner of lncome f ax, '2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam - 530020.
4. The Commissioner of income Tax (TDS), 3'd Floor, SVR Plaza, Door No. 40-615, Sidhartha Public School Road, lvloghalraipuram, Vijayawada - 520010.
5. The Administrative Officer and Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Office of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (TDS), 3'' Floor, SVR Plaza, Door No. 40-6-15, Sidhartha Public School Road, Vijayawada - 520010. PETITIONERS AND T.V.P. Latha, W/o. P. Subba Rao, aged about 54 years, Group-A, Occupation: Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, TDS Range, Vijayawada, Wo. Door No. 20-311-20112' Geetha Apartments, New Ayodhya Nagar, Vijayawada - 520 003 ...
RES,ONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari and to call for the records in oA 20/573/2018 on the file of the Hon'ble central Administrative Tribunal [cAT], Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and to set aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2019 in oA 20157312018 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal [CAT], Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. lA NO: 'l OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned order dated 1 4.'1 0.
201 9 in OA 20157312018 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal [CAT], Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondents: -- The Court made the following: ORDER
ARR,J&KL,J W.P.No.23324 oi 2020 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A'RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SiTiIUSTICC K' LAKSHMAN W itPetition N .23324 of 2020 OR ER er s as eke Red This writ petition is filed against the order dated 14'10'2019 passed in o.A.No.2ol573/20l8onthefileoftheCentralAdministrativeTribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad' wherein and whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent was allowed by setting aside the recoveryproceedingsdated25.0l.20,lB,initiatedagainstheronthe ground that she was erroneously granted increments in the year 2006' 2.
Sri B. Narasimha Sharma' learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners, submits that any amount erroneously granted to the employee can be recovered and admittedly, there is no dispute that the increments were granted to the respondent erroneously and recovery of the same after issuance of show cause notice cannot be faulted. 3.
ln the present case, it is to be seen that the increments were granted to the respondent in the year 2006 and she retired voluntarily from service during pendency of O.A., and that a show cause notice was issued on 27.12.2017 for recovery of the amount said to have been granted to the respondent erroneously and recovery proceedings were issued on 25.01 .2018, which was impugned in the O.A., before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by following the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (Civil Appeal No.11527 oI 2014 daled 18.12.2014); A.K.Lakshmipathy v. Rai Saheb Pannalal H. Lahoti Charitable Trusti; Rekha Mukherjee v. Ashis Kumar Dasii; and Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee v. Union of lndiaiii, and also by referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of lndia v. Sadhana Khanna (C.A.No.8208 ot 2001); M.V.Thimmaiah v' UPSC I (C.A.No.5883-5991 of 2007 dated 13.12.2007, allowed the O.A.' holding t
* " *.221;l !,It;i that the petitioners grantedincrements erroneousry to the respondent and there is no fault on her part and thateven, there was a delay of 10 years for taking steps for recovery of the amounts drawn by her and as such, the Tribunal has rightry discussed and passed a reasoned order. 4'
ln view of the above, we are of the view that this is not a fit case to exercise our extraordinary equitabre jurisdiction and to interdict the order passed by the Tribunar and we do not find any merit in the writ petition. 5.
Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 6.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shail stand dismissed.
(2010)l scc 287 (200s) 3 scc 427 "' 1991 Supp(2) SCC 363 SD/-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ].\ SECTION OFFICER ,TRUE COPY'
To,
1. One CC to Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, S.C. for Income Tax Deptartment [OPUC]
2. Two CD Copies, l\rlP &
HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212020 rt\ E STA r4r c o IJ za -L 12 JAil 2021
ORDER
.t )F .),',:
OFa-; ir WP.No.23324 of 2020 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ) lt