AI Insights
The case involves Dhirendra Bahadur Singh, a Senior Scientist at CSIR-CIMFR, who challenged an order from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, which dismissed his request for interim relief against a notice demanding the refund of an honorarium paid in March 2021. The honorarium, amounting to Rs. 8,50,000, was initially credited to Singh's account but was later subject to a refund demand by CSIR-CIMFR. The petitioner argued that the recovery of the honorarium, which had already been taxed, was illegal and sought relief to prevent further deductions from his salary. The respondents, including the Union of India and CSIR-CIMFR, contended that the matter was under review and the tax deducted would not be reclaimed from Singh.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 820862 (HC-JHARKHAND)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
01-12-2022
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5807 of 2022 Dhirendra Bahadur Singh, Aged about 59 Years, Son of Late Aniruddha Bahadur Singh, Resident of D-5, Vedant Apartment, Manoram Nagar, L.C. Road, P.O., P.S. District Dhanbad (Jharkhand), Pin Code-826001 ... ... Petitioner Versus 1.Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology, New Delhi. 2.Council of Scientific & Industrial Research-Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research (CSIR-CIMFR), through its Director General, New Delhi. 3.Financial Advisor, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research-Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research (CSIR-CIMFR), through its Director General, New Delhi. 4.The Administrative Officer, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research-Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research (CSIR-CIMFR), Dhanbad. 5.The Controller of Administration, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research-Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research (CSIR-CIMFR), Dhanbad. … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate : Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, CGC : Dr. Adish Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jayesh K. Unnikrishnan, Advocate : Mr. Abhay Prakash, S.C : Mrs. M. Gupta, Advocate --------- Oral Order 03/Dated: 01.12.2022 This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in M.A/051/00502/2022 filed in O.A. No.051/00612/2022. 2. By filing the miscellaneous application, the petitioner sought interim relief in O.A. No.051/00612/2022 praying for interim stay on execution of notice/direction dated 05.08.2022 issued by the Controller of Administration, Council of Scientific & Industrial 2 Research-Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research (CSIR-CIMFR) directing the applicant to refund the gross amount of honorarium paid in the month of March 2021, latest by 20th August, 2022, failing which the recovery would be effected from the salary from August 2022 onwards. 3. It is contended that since the amount could not be returned, the recovery has already started, therefore, the petition for grant of interim relief was filed. 4. Short facts which emerge out of the writ petition is that the CSIR-CIMFR paid honorarium on 25.03.2021 to its 553 employees/staffs including the applicant who happens to be a Senior Scientist. It emanates out of the order impugned that a gross amount of Rs.8,50,000/- and after deduction of amount of Rs.2,65,200/- as income tax Rs.5,84,800/ was credited to his bank account. However, on 01.04.2021, the Administrative Officer of the CSIR-CIMFR issued notice under the direction of the D.G, CSIR that all the payees or beneficiaries would be required to refund the gross amount of honorarium paid to them. On 12.04.2021, the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of CSIR- CIMFR issued memorandum to the beneficiaries including the applicant that they should refund the gross amount of honorarium at the earliest through cheque or demand draft drawn in favour of the Director, CIMFR. Subsequently, again a notice was issued on 05.08.2022 to the beneficiaries including the applicant to deposit the gross amount by 20th August, failing which the recovery would be effected. 3 A representation was made to the authorities and then against the aforesaid orders, the original application being O.A. No.051/00612/2022 was filed and which is pending. The issue of grant of interim relief for stay of notice/direction dated 05.08.2022 appended as Annexue-9 to the miscellaneous application has been considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal and after considering the issues raised by the parties, the miscellaneous application has been dismissed. 5. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apart from the fact that recovery is illegal, it is also being sought by the administration that the gross amount of honorarium should be returned which means that even the tax which has already been deducted and has gone into the coffers of the Union of India should also be returned by the petitioner whereas he is not retaining it. 6. In reply, Mr. Adish Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the CSIR has submitted that so far the deducted amount with respect to the TDS would not be recovered from the petitioner and that would be adjusted in their future salary etc. 7. However, in course of hearing it has been informed at the Bar that the Tribunal has already fixed the date on 15.12.2022 for hearing the matter. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the CSIR undertakes that the written statement would be filed within 10 days, however, after serving a copy of the same well in advance. 9. In the above view of the matter, in place of dealing with the issue at this juncture, since the issue is also involved in the original application, we would request the Central Administrative Tribunal to 4 finally hear the matter on 15.12.2022 itself in view of the fact that the pleadings could be complete. 10. We are issuing this direction for the reason that the main issue would have to be delved upon if we proceed to pass any order with respect to any interim relief. We will have to touch the main issue which is pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which, in our considered view would not be proper at this stage. However, at the same time since the writ petitioner is at receiving end and the recovery is being made from his salary, it is required that the matter be heard at its earliest. 11. Both the parties have agreed that none of them will make any prayer for adjournment on any ground on the next date fixed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) APK/Saket "
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
Master The Pitch-Deck Game
₹0
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
CRM Implementation Plan
₹0
Research Collaboration Agreement
₹0
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026