IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6728 of 2006 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through General Manager, North East Railway, Gorakhpur now E.C. Railway, Hajipur 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North East Railway, now E.C. Railway, Sonepur Saran. 3. The Divisional Accounts Officer, North East Railway, now E.C. Railway, Sonepur Saran. 4. The Post Master, Head Post Office, Samastipur Versus 1. DAMARI PRASAD Son of late Marsu Prasad, resident of Ward No.2, Bangali Tola, Samastipur, retired Guard `A’ Special under Divisional Railway Manager, North East Railway, now EC Railway, Sonepur. 2. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench Patna ----------- 8 06-01-2009 Heard the parties. It appears that the dispute between the parties is same which was taken to the Supreme Court in the case of S. R. Dhingra and others which has been finally decided on 14.12.2007. A copy of the said judgement has been annexed as annexure-1 to a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India and others, the petitioners. The said judgement is against the view taken by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in the judgement and order under challenge. The Supreme Court has held that the benefit of running allowance which has been given to the respondents at the time of retirement is not to be given again vide Office Memorandum dated 10.12.1998. The Supreme Court has further directed in paragraph 28 of its judgement that any amount already paid to the respondents and other similarly situated persons shall not be recovered from them. Learned counsel for the respondents has very fairly submitted that in view of aforesaid Supreme Court decision the writ - 2 - petition of Union of India has to be allowed and the judgement and order of learned Central Administrative Tribunal dated 24.1.2006 passed in O.A. no. 29/2002 has to be set aside. However, he rightly submitted that in the matter of recovery the respondent no. 1 deserve similar protection in view of the direction of the Supreme Court in paragraph 28 which itself mentions that no recovery shall be made even from other similarly situated persons besides respondents of that case. In the result, this writ application is allowed and impugned order dated 24.1.2006 passed in O.A. no. 29/2002 is quashed but the respondent no. 1 is entitled to the benefit as per direction of the Supreme Court made in paragraph 28 of the judgement in the case of S.R. Dhingra and others, already noticed above. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma,J.)