IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 7769 of 2008 Between: 1 Union of India Rep by its Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal, AP. 3 The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal, AP. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND LA Roach, S/o. A.A. Reach, O/o. The Chief Controller, Guntakal, South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, R/o. S.No. 922/8, Railway, Ten Line, Guntakal, A.P. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records pertaining to OA No. 4/2007 dated 17-8- 2007 on the ﬁle of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, and quash the same, in part, to the extent of the direction given to the petitioners herein not to make any recovery of the excess amount already paid to the respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and un-unconstitutional and further declare that these orders have been passed without any jurisdiction vested in the Honourable CAT Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.PUSHPINDER KAUR Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.7769 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 17-08-2007 in O.A.No.4 of 2007 on the ﬁle of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, to the extent of directing the petitioners herein not to make any recovery of the excess amount already paid to the respondent – applicant. 2. The details relevant for deciding this writ petition may be stated thus: The respondent–applicant ﬁled the above O.A. challenging the proceedings issued to the eﬀect that he is absorbed as Crew Controller in the scale of Rs.6,500-10,500 in the alternative post for being medically unﬁt to be the driver and that he is not eligible for running allowance – allowance in lieu of kilometerage of 120 Km daily, on the basis of Circular instructions of the Railway Board, dated 14-01-2004. It is the case of the applicant that while he was working as Driver Goods in the scale of Rs.5,000-8,000 and was absorbed in the running cadre, he was sent to Railway Hospital for periodic medical examination and was declared medically unﬁt. The grievance of the applicant was that though he was appointed as Crew Controller when he was found medically unﬁt to work as Driver and he is entitled to the same pay and allowances applicable for the Driver, the authority stated that he is not eligible for running allowance. The Railways contested the O.A., inter alia, contending that the applicant had accepted the alternative/sedentary post and continued to draw his pay and allowances equivalent to the one drawn prior to his medical de-categorisation and the Driver who is absorbed in an alternative sedentary job as Crew Controller is not eligible to draw 120 Kms per day allowance, in lieu of kilometerage. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, upheld the Circular dated 14-01-2004 and dismissed the O.A., but directed the oﬃcial authorities not to make any recovery of the excess amount already paid to the applicant. Hence, this writ petition is filed by the Railways. 3. None appears for the respondent though notice was served. Heard learned standing counsel appearing for petitioners and perused the record. 4. Learned standing counsel contended that the Tribunal having upheld the Circular dated 14-01-2004 erred in directing not to eﬀect recovery, especially when the applicant was medically de-categorised and not entitled to running allowance. 5. In the instant case, the facts are not seriously disputed. In fact, the writ petition is ﬁled against the impugned order to the extent of directing the Railways not to eﬀect the recovery of excess amount paid to the applicant. It appears the authority had erroneously paid the allowance and subsequently realised the mistake, and seek recovery of the excess amount paid to the respondent. The authority had understood the Circular in a particular manner and drawn the allowance and paid to the employee that too in the absence of any misrepresentation by the employee. Thus, it is a clear case of misinterpretation of the Circular by the department. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 17-09-2008 bsc