Facts
The applicant, Surender Kumar Jain, a retired Executive Engineer (C) in DDA, filed an Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, challenging the recovery of Rs. 8,55,200/- from his gratuity after his superannuation, which resulted from an arbitrary reduction of his basic pay from Rs. 93,800/- to Rs. 90,300/- via an impugned order dated 28.03.2022
Source reference: p.2The applicant had submitted a written representation dated 15.12.2025 against this action, to which the respondents had not yet responded
Source reference: p.2-3Issues
Whether the recovery of the amount from the applicant's gratuity after superannuation, based on a reduction in basic pay, was illegal
Source reference: p.2Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant's pending representation dated 15.12.2025 in light of the Tribunal's previous order in O.A./2978/2023
Source reference: p.3-4Law Applied
The Tribunal primarily applied the principles of avoiding recovery from gratuity after superannuation, as enunciated in previous judgments, specifically the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Lakshmi Chand Vs. DDA, O.A./2978/2023 pronounced on 12.03.2025, which held such actions to be illegal
Source reference: p.2The Tribunal also considered its direction in a similar case, Sartaj Alam vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. in O.A./553/2026, dated 13.02.2026, which involved directing the consideration of a pending representation
Source reference: p.3-4Reasoning
The applicant contended that the recovery from his gratuity after superannuation was illegal, citing the Co-ordinate Bench's judgment in Lakshmi Chand Vs. DDA
Source reference: p.2Given the respondents' lack of response to the applicant's representation dated 15.12.2025, the applicant sought a direction for the competent authority to consider and decide this representation, drawing parallelism from Sartaj Alam vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. where a similar directive was issued
Source reference: p.3-4The respondents' counsel conceded to consider the representation in accordance with the law
Source reference: p.4Therefore, without delving into the specific merits of the recovery, the Tribunal applied the principle of natural justice and past precedents to direct the consideration of the representation
Source reference: p.4Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. at the admission stage, directing the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's pending representation dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure A-2) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, specifically in light of the Tribunal's order dated 12.03.2025 in O.A./2978/2023
The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the respondents free to decide the representation in accordance with the law
Source reference: p.4-5Original Court PDF
Surender Kumar Jain v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. [O.A. No. 872/2026]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in