[2025:RJ-JP:26652-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16136/2024 Sh. Lokesh Kumar Gupta Son Of Shri Ramavtar Gupta, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of C-206, Nirman Nagar, Kings Road, Opposite Shyam Nagar Thana, Jaipur. Presently Working As General Manager (Bn-1), Bsnl, Jaipur. (Group A Service), Subject - Recovery ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Communication And I.t., Department Of Telecommunication, 20, Ashoka Road, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairman And Managing Director Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi-110023. 3. Bharat Broadband Network Limited, Through Its Chief General Manager (Hr), 3Rd Floor, Office Block-1, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi-110023. 4. Chief General Manager, Telecom, Rajasthan, Bharat Sanchar Nigam, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur- 302008. 5. Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Training, Ministry Of Personnel, P.g. And Pensions, North Block, New Delhi-110001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Pareek Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 17/07/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur [2025:RJ-JP:26652-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-16136/2024] Bench, Jaipur dismissing the Original Application (OA) filed by the petitioner. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was posted in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short ‘BSNL’) in the year 1996. In pursuance to the deputation posting notified by the Bharat Broadband Network Limited (for short ‘BBNL’) the petitioner applied and was sent on deputation from 01.08.2018 to 30.09.2022. The petitioner was paid deputation allowance while serving with BBNL. As per the OM dated 24.11.2017, the deputation allowance within the same station was payable at the rate of 5% of basic pay subject to a maximum of Rs.4500/- per month and in case of outstation, the allowance was 10% of the basic pay subject to a maximum of Rs.9,000/- per month. The OM of 2017 was clarified by issuing OM of 15.03.2021. Relying upon the OM of 2021 the recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for recovery of the excess deputation allowance paid. Aggrieved of the recovery, petitioner filed OA. The Tribunal upheld the order of recovery but issued directions to the petitioner to file a representation for making an option as per Para 3.2 of 2021 OM and till the decision was taken the parties were directed to maintain status quo. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia submits that the petitioner was paid deputation allowance as per the BBNL policy dated 01.11.2012 as modified from time to time. The petitioner was not governed by OM. The grievance raised is that the Tribunal inspite of noting the contention has not dealt it. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents have defended the impugned order. [2025:RJ-JP:26652-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-16136/2024] 5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 6. From the impugned order of the Tribunal it is evident that contention of counsel for the petitioner that allowances were paid as per the policy dated 01.11.2012 of the BBNL was noted but not dealt with. 7. It would be appropriate to note that BBNL had filed a short reply before the Tribunal and had not taken stand as to whether payment of deputation allowance was made as per the circular or as per the OM of 2017. 8. Consequently the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the OA in accordance with law. The BBNL, if so advised, may file a detailed reply before the Tribunal. 9. The writ petition is allowed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /17