Thecontroller Of Communication Accounts And ORS. v. Ramashish Prasad Singh And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23764 of 2013 ====================================================== 1.The Controller of Communication Accounts having his office in 2/5A Judges Court Road, Division-II Kolkata.

2. The Union of India through Secretary, Department of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.

3. The Communication Accounts Officer,Office of the Controller of Communication Accounts, West Bengal, Telecom Circle,(E.T.P.), DivisionII, 2/5A Judges Court Road, Kolkata.

4. The Senior Accounts Officer, Office of G.M. Telecom Project, P.S. Kotwali, District-Patna.

5. The P.G.M. Telecom, District Telephone Bhawan, P.S. Sachivalaya, RBlock, Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.Ramashish Prasad Singh, aged about 63 years, son of Late Bhola Prasad Singh, Resident of Kidwaipuri, P& T Quarter, 33 Type II, P.S. Kotwali, Patna-13.

2.The BSNL through the Chairman & Managing Director(Government of India), Undertaking B-201, Statement House, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi.

3. The Chief General Manager, Telecom Project, West Bengal Circle, Kolkata.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mr. Raj Kamal(C.G.C) For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) 04-09-2015 1. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioners. A wrong increment was given to an employee, which is sought to be corrected much after his superannuation, and recoveries are to be made. The same, on being challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, was sustained. That order of the Central

Patna High Court CWJC No.23764 of 2013 (2) dt.04-09-2015 2/2 Administrative Tribunal, granting the relief to the employee, is under challenge.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has committed no wrong in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand[(2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 417].

3. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) BK.Roy/- U