AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for a direction to the respondents to refund the recovered amount from the pension of applicant along with 12% compound interest from January, 2025 till the date of actual payment.
The brief facts of the case, as stated in the Original Application, are that the applicant was initially appointed in the respondents' department in the year 1983 and retired from service on 31.12.2019 from the post of Train Manager (Mail/Express), after rendering more than 33 years of service.
After introduction of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme w.e.f. 01.09.2008, the applicant was granted financial upgradation under the said Scheme. Subsequently, Railway Board issued letter dated 13.12.2012 relating to the Grade Pay admissible under the MACP Scheme. Consequent thereto, the respondents initiated the process of cancellation/revision of the MACP benefits earlier granted to certain Guards.
The issue relating to the aforesaid MACP benefit was considered by this Tribunal in OA No.331/2015, wherein the Tribunal passed an order dated 15.11.2018. The said order was challenged by the respondents before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, but the challenge was dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2022. The respondents thereafter approached the Apex Court by filing SLP (Civil) Diary No.43099/2023, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2023.
The applicant and other similarly situated persons thereafter filed Contempt Petition No.125/2024 before this Tribunal. In the course of the said proceedings, a revised PPO dated 30.08.2024 was issued in respect of the applicant. Subsequently, another revised PPO dated 24.09.2024 was issued. Thereafter, recovery of Rs.28,286/- per month was commenced from the pension of the applicant w.e.f. January, 2025.
The applicant thereafter submitted a representation dated 15.09.2025 to the respondents in respect of the recovery. Since the amount already recovered was not refunded, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the present Original Application seeking refund of the recovered amount along with interest.
Respondents have opposed the claim of the applicant by filing counter affidavit and stated that the PPO dated 29.08.2024 was issued on an incorrect pay fixation and was subsequently revised on 24.09.2024. The excess amount arising therefrom was recovered from the applicant’s pension. They have further stated that, pursuant to the interim order dated 25.09.2025 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.981/2025, a letter dated 16.10.2025 was issued for stopping further recovery. The respondents have also disputed the applicability of the judgment in Rafiq Masih to the applicant’s case.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant retired from service on 31.12.2019 and the issue relating to the MACP benefit granted to him had already been adjudicated by this Tribunal in OA No.331/2015 vide order dated 15.11.2018. The said order was upheld by the Central Administrative TribunalHigh Court vide order dated 05.12.2022, and the challenge before the Apex Court was also dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2023.
Learned counsel further submits that the alleged excess payment occurred due to the departmental pay fixation and the applicant neither misrepresented any fact nor committed fraud. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., as well as the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016 and Railway Board Office Memorandum dated 22.06.2016, learned counsel stated that recovery from a retired employee in the facts of the present case is impermissible. It is further submitted that the applicant had also submitted a representation dated 15.09.2025, but the amount already recovered has not been refunded.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant was initially granted financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.09.2008, but the subsequent clarification issued by the Railway Board vide RBE No.142/2012 dated 13.12.2012 necessitated revision of the pay fixation. It is contended that the PPO dated 29.08.2024 reflecting pay of Rs.1,02,800/- was issued on an incorrect fixation and was subsequently corrected by issuing the revised PPO dated 24.09.2024. According to the respondents, the excess payment arising from the earlier PPO was recoverable.
Learned counsel further submitted that the judgment in Rafiq Masih is not applicable to the applicant’s case and that the recovery was made in accordance with the applicable Railway rules. The respondents also stated that, pursuant to the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.981/2025, a communication dated 16.10.2025 was issued to the concerned authorities for stopping further recovery of Rs.28,286/- from the applicant’s pension. for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8 The principal issue requiring consideration in the present Original Application is whether the amount already recovered from the pension of the applicant can be retained by the respondents, particularly when the applicant had retired from service on 31.12.2019 and no fraud or misrepresentation has been attributed to him. The respondents have stated that the alleged excess payment arose on account of the pay fixation and the issuance of the PPO by the departmental authorities.
The Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334, has laid down the principles governing recovery of excess payments from employees in specified circumstances, including recovery from retired employees. In the present case, the applicant had retired from service before the recovery was commenced, and no fraud or misrepresentation has been attributed to him. The respondents have also stated that the alleged excess payment arose from the departmental pay fixation. Considering these circumstances, the recovery already effected from the pension of the applicant is not sustainable in law.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original Application deserves to be allowed to the extent of refund of the amount already recovered from the pension of the applicant pursuant to the impugned recovery. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to refund the entire amount so recovered to the applicant along with 6% simple interest, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
It is clarified that this Tribunal is not examining the correctness of the pay fixation or the revised PPO issued in respect of the applicant. No pension admissible to him. These matters are left open to be dealt with by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules and the judgments and orders governing the matter. The present adjudication is confined solely to the recovery already effected from the pension of the applicant.
The Original Application is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.