Civil Writ Petition No. 22033 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22033 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.12.2010 Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and others ..Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal and another ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. M.S.Cheema, Advocate for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reports or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed by the Union of India is directed against order dated 7.7.2009 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, “the Tribunal”) holding that the original applicant-respondent Malkit Singh was promoted to the post of Statistical Investigator Grade I on ad hoc basis on 20.2.2002 and his pay was fixed at Rs.7700/- with effect from 21.2.2002 with next date of increment as 1.2.2003 and continued working till his superannuation on 31.8.2006 with last pay drawn at Rs.8700/- in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. However, he was reverted to the feeder post of Stastical Investigator Grade II vide order dated 2.1.2003, although again promoted with effect from 6.1.2003 for the date on which he reported for duty. On account of amendment made in the order retrospectively, the department recovered a sum of Rs.27593/- from his Death-cum-retirement Civil Writ Petition No. 22033 of 2010 2 gratuity. The Tribunal has held that refixation of pay of the original applicant-respondent could have been done only after complying with the principles of natural justice because it entails pecuniary consequences by way of recovery. Moreover, the order with regard to re-fixation was passed after his retirement on 17.10.2006 whereas the original applicant- respondent had retired on 31.8.2006. The total amount of recovery involved is slighter more than Rs.27593/-. We have heard learned counsel at some length and are of the view that the amount of recovery involved is very meagre and it would not be worthwhile to enter into any legal controversy at this stage. The factual position is that the original applicant-respondent was entitled to superannuate from the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-I. The difference is only of the date of promotion which does not entail any heavy pecuniary consequences. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the view taken by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( RITU BAHRI ) 10.12.2010 JUDGE VK