Naval Kishore Rajak vs Union Of India & Ors

Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the review applicant (who was also the applicant in the OA), and Shri Anil Kumar, counsel for the review respondents (who was also respondents in the OA), are present and heard.

The present review application has been filed by the original applicant namely Shri Naval Kishore Rajak with the following prayer:

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may review its judgment dated 31.01.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Original Application No. 814 of 2022, Naval Kishore Rajak Vs Union of India and others passed by the bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash – VII, Member (J) and Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) and present matter may not be remitted back to the respondents as deponent is entitled for the benefits of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme, as his appointment on the post of CLSA is ex.cadre post under MACP scheme, otherwise, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss and injury.”

Learned counsel for the review applicant submits that in the similar circumstances as are prevailing in the subject OA, another OA No. 797 of 2022 titled R N Joshi and others Vs Union of India and others was decided on 08.12.2025. Specific direction was given to the respondents to furnish to each applicant the full Committee report, all relied upon documents, and a clear statement of the propsed recovery amount along with its legal basis within four weeks. Referring to the aforesaid facts, it was further argued that this procedure has not been followed in the OA No 814 of 2022 which was decided on 31.01.2025. Thus, argued to allow the instant review application and to recall the judgment and order dated 31.01.2025 passed in OA No 814 of 2022 to decide the matter in light of the direction given in the order and judgment passed in OA No 797 of 2022.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer of the review applicant and argued that the OA No 814 of 2022 was decided on 31.01.2025 whereas the OA No 797 of 2022 was decided on 08.12.2025. It was further argued that there is no basic difference in the direction given in both the aforesaid OAs. OA No 814 of 2022 was decided on merits after hearing both the parties. If the applicant was aggrieved with the judgment and order passed in OA No 814 of 2022, he ought to have challenged the same before the Hon’ble High Court in writ petition. He also argued that the applicant has accepted the refund amount and his salary has been restored / refixed as was directed in the aforesaid case and thus, no ground exists to proceed with the instant review application on the basis of judgment and order passed in OA No 797 of 2022. Thus, argued to dismiss the review application at this stage itself.

We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the records.

OA No 814 of 2022 was decided on 31.01.2025 with following directions:

“13. Admittedly, in the instant case applicant has not committed any fraud or misrepresentation in getting the upgraded pay scale. Respondents have proposed to recover the excess amount even without issuing a show cause notice to the applicant which is not justifiable.

As far as reducing the pay of the applicant, the same has been done without affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant, which is also not tenable in the eyes of law.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the present O.A. is allowed and impugned order dated 18.08.2022 is quashed. Respondents is hereby directed to refund the amount, if any, recovered from the applicant within a period of 03 months. If any amount is still to be recovered, same shall not be recovered. As far as reducing the pay of the applicant is concerned, the matter is remitted back to the respondents to refix the salary of the applicant, if any wrong has been done by them in fixing the salary of the applicant, after issuing show cause notice to the applicant and considering the reply given by him. If respondents found that refixation is necessary, then refix the salary of the applicant within a period of 03 months. It is made clear that in no case recovery could be made from the applicant. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending MAs stand disposed.”

Similarly, OA No 797 of 2022 was decided on 08.12.2025 with following directions:

In view of the above discussion, the following conclusions are drawn:-

(a) The respondents were competent to undertake the review and verification exercise pursuant to directions of the Headquarters and the Tribunal, and correction of wrongly granted benefits is permissible in law.

(b) The impugned orders dated 03.08.2022 and 16/22.08.2022 are held unsustainable as the review was undertaken without strict adherence to the principles of natural justice. The respondents must supply all documents/material relied upon and follow due procedure before taking any corrective action.

(c) No recovery shall be made from the applicants as per the protective principles laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra) case and applicable DoPT/Railway Board instructions.

It is further noted that the impugned orders were passed on the basis of recommendations of the Committee constituted pursuant to directions of the Tribunal. The applicants have not specifically challenged the Committee’s report. Unless the Committee’s findings are challenged and set aside, the question of entitlement to MACP benefits cannot be conclusively adjudicated. The applicants have pleaded that they were not provided the Committee report or the complete material relied upon before issuance of legal notice. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to furnish to each applicant the full Committee report, all relied-upon documents, and a clear statement of the proposed recovery amount along with its legal basis within four weeks. The applicants shall thereafter have four weeks to submit their reply, and if requested, a personal hearing shall be granted within two weeks. The competent authority shall thereafter pass a detailed, reasoned order on the correctness of MACP grant. It is clarified that in no case recovery of excess payment could be made from the applicants as they have retired from the service and MACP has been allowed by the department and there was no fault or misrepresentation on part of the applicants as has been held in Rafiq Masih (supra) case. It is further clarified that till decision is taken pension already fixed in respect of the applicants shall not be reduced.”

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire records including the judgment and order passed in the instant OA, we are of the considered view that no apparent mistake or illegality is found to review the judgment and order passed in the subject OA. Thus, the instant review application is liable to be rejected and the same is rejected being devoid of merits.

All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.