THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.22370 of 2011 Dated:09.08.2011 Between: Union of India, And others. … Petition And S.P.Sharma, S/o.Late Gorakh P.D.Sharma. ... Respond THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.22370 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The writ petition is against the order dated 07.01.2011 of the Cen Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in O.A.No.1018 of 2009. By said order, the learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by respondent, and set aside the orders dated 25.10.2006, 07.08.2007 21.07.2008 issued by the Director General of Naval Armament, third petitio herein, ordering recovery of Rs.61,767/- paid towards Head Quarter ( allowance (special pay) to the respondent. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. The respondent was an Office Group-A service in Indian Naval Armament Service (INAS). These officers posted either at Naval Head Quarters (NHQ) or at Naval Armament Dep located all over India. The Chief of Naval Staff (CNS), second petitioner her issued tenure policy vide CP(C)/2112, dated 28.05.1985. As per the said po Group-A Officer cannot be posted at a place for more than four years. Be tha it is, the Government of India in Ministry of Defence, communicated the order the President of India vide letter No.CP(P)/7702/NHQ/4700/D(Civ-I), da 07.10.1985. As per this communication of the Government of India to the C the special pay will be admissible to the Officers in the Senior time scale Junior/Intermediate administrative grades of INAS when they are posted f field units/lower formations on tenure basis to NHQ at the rates mentio therein. The payment of special pay is subject to a maximum tenure of years after which special pay will not be admissible. The respondent was posted at NHQ on 08.09.1997, but he w continued in the tenure up to 31.10.2006 for a period of about nine years. was not transferred after completion of four years as per the tenure policy da 28.05.1985 of the CNS. He continued to draw the HQ allowance/special pay per the Government of India communication referred to hereinabove till he w transferred and posted at Visakhapatnam on 21.05.2007. By the ord impugned before the learned Tribunal, the Director General of Naval Armam (DGNA) sought to recover the amount of Rs.61,767/- for the period f 08.09.2001 to 31.10.2006 paid towards special pay/HQ allowance. Needles mention, the petitioners herein placed reliance on the tenure policy and Government of India letter communicating the decision of the Presid directing payment of special pay/HQ allowance to INAS Officers. The Assistant Solicitor General while reiterating the submissions f the affidavit accompanying the writ petition placed strong reliance on the ten policy and HQ allowance payment order. There is no dispute that the respondent was posted at NHQ 08.09.1997 and he completed four years tenure on 08.09.2001. Noth prevented the competent authority to transfer the respondent. He was allow to continue upto 21.05.2007 when he was transferred to Visakhapatnam. probable justification for continuing the respondent at NHQ upto 21.05.200 paragraph 2 of the tenure policy which is to the effect that, “tenures are sub to the exigencies of service and consideration of compassionate cases in extra-ordinary circumstances”. It is nobody’s case that the respondent w continued at NHQ on compassionate grounds. From this an inference can drawn that due to exigencies of naval service, respondent was continued NHQ and he was allowed to draw the special pay/HQ allowance. In s circumstances, it would be unjust to allow the petitioners to recover the allowance paid to the respondent to which he was legitimately entitled as the Government of India order. In our considered opinion, the condition granting special pay/HQ allowance to INAS Officers for a maximum tenur four years shall have to be read in the light of the tenure policy which itself s that an Officer can be continued at NHQ for more than four years. Further, in consider opinion, the very purpose of paying special pay/HQ allowance to IN Officers posted at NHQ is to mitigate the hardship they might face. S hardship would not get diminished even if an Officer is continued beyond years as per the tenure policy. Therefore, the order passed by the DGNA w rightly set aside by the learned Tribunal, and no interference is called for. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO ________________ (K.G.SHANKAR 09.08.2011 vs