, W BE? ORE THE STATE ADMINKSTRATIVE TB. IBUNAL MADHYA PRADESH RAIPUR ENCH AT RMPUR (M.P.). in the Matter- of O.A.No.: Between: DARSHAN RAM VERMA aged 62 years son of Late Amar Deo Ram Verma, Retd.Forest Ranger ”‘Kgarun Nagar', Near Lodbipara Chowk, Pandar‘i Raipur M.P.’ Versus 1. State of Madhya Pradesh through‘mfWSecretary Forest Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. 2. Conservator of Forest / Raipur (North), Raipur M.P. 3. ivisional Forest Officer North Division, Raipur FILP. wW :a, [2W APPLICATION UNDER EECTION ’19 OF ADMINISTriATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, PETITIONER: Rx F K RESPONDENTS: ORDER / POWm Darshan Ram Verma Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) and others x «a ST ON Ié APRIL 2010 g. / Sdl- ‘Manindra Mohan Shn Judge /(f vastava M VIM g@> later on, he received an order alleged to be ante dated. It is further submitted that on 18.4.1999, petitioner came to know from newspaper that recovery in similar cases was held illegal by a judgment of Indore Bench of the Tribunal. Thereafter, this petition was filed on 3. 1.2000. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is nothing on record to Show that excess payment alleged to have been made to the - petitioner was on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. It is also argued that from perusal of order dated 29.7.1995 (Annexure A—1), it is clear that various pay—scales and increments granted and pay fixed from the year 1972 till 22. 1.1995 was scrutinized as late as in the year 1995 on which basis, it was found that on several occasions, wrong fixation of pay was done giving rise to an occasion for recovery at the fag end of his service. In the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this course of action was Wholly illegal and impermissible in law and no such recovery could be effected after his retirement. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that whatever was paid to him was on the basis of various pay fixation made from time to time since 1972 by the Competent Authority, on the basis of which salary was paid to the 3 petitioner and even assuming that earlier on certain occasions, pay was not correctly fixed in the appropriate pay—scales, the amount already paid to the petitioner could ndt be recovered. . Per contra, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that petitioner was paid amount more than his actual salary as sanctioned by the Joint Director, Treasury 85 Accounts. Before such deduction, it was indicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 29.7.1995. Learned counsel for the respondents argues that petitioner having come to know .of the said order dated 29.7.1995, he did not challenge the same and @Cx acquiesced in the action of respondents. There is no plausible explanation for delay of 4 1/2 years in filing the petition before the Tribunal and therefore the petition was liable to be dismissed only on the grounds of delay. . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. A In raly to objection with regard to delay in filing the petition, petitioner has placed reliance of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Abdul adir and others Vs. State of Bihar and other 2009 3 SCC 475. . In the aforesaid case, it was found that on account of Wrong interpretation of rules, excess payments were made and it was not because of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the appellants therein. In that case, the Supreme Court directed that no recovery of the excess amount, that has been paid to teachers of Secondary Schools be made, irrespective of the fact Whether they have moved the Court or not and it was also directed that the amount that has been recovered from some of the teachers after the impugned judgment was passed by the High Court, irrespective of the fact whether they have moved the Court or not, be refunded to them within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. In theconsidered opinion of this Court, petitioner is not entitled to benefit of the aforesaid. judgment for the purposes of seeking condonation of delay in filing instant petition. In the case of Abdul Qadir (supra), direction for giving similar payment to other teacher who had not approached the Court was given in the peculiar circumstances, as in the aforesaid case, it was found .' that on the basis of a particular interpretation given to provisions of the X a Rules, payments were made to teachers and later on it'was found that the entire class of teacher suffered similar recoveries on the same basis pertaining to interpretation and applicability of amended provisions of F.R. 22. Petitioner has neither filed nor placed before this Court, the judgment of the Tribunal on the basis of which the petitioner claims similar treatment. . In the petition, it has been stated that the petitioner came to know about recovery on 18.4.1999 when judgment to that effect’passed by the Indore Bench of the Tribunal was published in the newspaper. It is also stated that the petitioner flles a separate petition for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the petition. However, the records show that no such application was filed by the petitioner. Petitioner has neither placed on record copy of similar order passed by the Tribunal nor any material t0 justify delay in approaching the Tribunal. . Impugned order was passed on 29.7.1995 and a copy of the same as already been endorsed to the petitioner. While the petitioner alleges that the order was ante-dated, there is no material to substantiate this allegation. Petitioner has ,not even alleged that this order was received by him after a long time. 3 . In the case of ’A.J. Fernandis Vs. Divisional Manager, South Central Railway and Others (200m 1 SCC 240 , Supreme Court has held as under: “14.Even otherwise} it is to be noted that the appellant got promoted to the post of Ticket Collector on 28.5.1983. He was thereafter promoted as a Senior Ticket Collector on 25.9.1986. The appellant was then promoted as a Train Ticket Examiner on 25.5.1987. The 3rd respondent chose to challenge the promotion of the appellant as a Ticket Collector only on account of delay and Iaches. rivasmva “/r