KARNATAKA LSA v. (BY SRI. CHANDAN S MALAPUR, ADVOCATE)

TELECOM, FIRST FLOOR, SANCHAR COMPLEX, WPS COMPOUND, 47TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041.

CONTROLLER OF COMMUNICATION ACCOUNTS, KARNATAKA CIRCLE, DEPT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, AMENITY BLOCK, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 041.

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (HUA) HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33010-DB WP No. 10653 of 2024 MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DLEHI-110 001.

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. (BY SRI. D. BASAVARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. RAKESH KUMAR DUBEY, S/O LATE DR. KN DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ADDL DIRECTOR GENERAL TELECOM, DEPT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, (EARLIER DESIGNATION: SR DDG) KARNATAKA LSA, BENGALURU-560 041. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDAN S MALAPUR, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER BY WAY OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2023 IN OA NO.170/122/2023 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY HONBLE CAT BENGALURU BENCH AND DECLARE THE SAME TO BE HYPOTHETICAL, MISLEADING, ERRATIC, ILLEGAL, ONE SIDED, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE INSTRUCTIONS LAID DOWN IN ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33010-DB WP No. 10653 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru dated 15.12.2023, whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent herein has been allowed by the Tribunal by stating as under: "16. Keeping the above points in view, the recovery of HRA made by the respondents is based on an erroneous interpretation of the existing rules. The applicant in the present case is entitled to claim HRA for his period of posting in Jammu, which cannot be treated as an Additional HRA.

The OA is, accordingly allowed, with the following directions: a) The impugned order dated 16.02.2023 (Annexure A-14) is set-aside. If any recovery has been made pursuant to Annexure A-14, the respondents shall repay the said amount to the applicant in an expedite manner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said unpaid amount shall also carry the GPF rate of interest for the period of delay in repayment, beyond this period of eight weeks. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33010-DB WP No. 10653 of 2024 b) There shall be no orders so as to costs. "

Though Mr. D. Basavaraja, learned counsel for the petitioners has made several submissions in challenge to the order of the Tribunal, one submission is after the Tribunal has passed the impugned order, the respondent has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation (on

30.04.2023). According to him, the Delhi High Court in the case of Dr.Shashi Vashisht vs. Union of India and ors., in W.P.(C) 13002/2018, wherein one of us 'VKRJ' is a party, the Court considering the fact that the petitioner therein had retired within one year of the order dated 23.12.2014 had set- aside the order of the Tribunal and directed the respondents to refund/release the balance gratuity amount from which recovery was effected in respect of the petitioner therein.

We have been informed that the impugned order which has been challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal is dated 16.02.2023 and the respondent has retired on