Smt. Runu Bhadra vs The Union Of India & Ors.

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The husband of the applicant, a retired officer of the Northeast Frontier Railway, has filed the instant Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the retroactive down-gradation of his pay, the recovery executed from his settlement dues, and the subsequent suppression of his regular pensionary allocations.

The applicant has sought the following principal reliefs:

At the outset of the final arguments, Dr. G.J. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, brought to the notice of this Tribunal that during the pendency of this Original Application, the original applicant, Shri Birendra Nath Bhadra, unfortunately passed away on 06.02.2025. Accordingly, a Miscellaneous Application for substitution was preferred, and vide this Tribunal's order dated 06.06.2025 passed in M.A. No. 109/2025, his legally wedded wife, Smt. Runu Bhadra, was officially substituted as the applicant to prosecute the cause of action. The cause of action survives in full, as the impugned pay reduction directly impacts the family pensionary safety and estate rights of the substituted widow.

Facts of the case as submitted in the O.A. are that the husband of the applicant was initially appointed in the NF Railway as Engine Cleaner on 03.02.1959. With successive promotions, he joined as Chief Vigilance Inspector (G) on 15.05.1990 in the 4^th CPC pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200/-. Thereafter, he regularly got annual increment on 1^st May of every year in terms of Para 1318 of IREC. On 01.01.1996, his pay was fixed in the 6^th CPC corresponding pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- with basic pay of Rs. 7100/- as on 01.01.1996. His basic pay on grant of annual increment thereafter are as under: As on 01.05.1996- Rs. 7300/-. As on 01.05.1997-Rs. 7500/-.

The husband of the applicant was granted promotion to the post of Enquiry Officer in the pay of Rs. 2000-3200/- [corresponding pay of Rs. 6500-10500 in the 5^th CPC] on 08.01.1998 and his basic pay remained Rs. 7500/-. Thereafter, he qualified the promotional examination and was promoted as Assistant Vigilance Officer/T/HQ in the higher pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 by order dated 07.04.1998. He gave option for fixation of his pay from the date of next increment due on 01.05.1998 by letter dated 06.05.1998. Accordingly, he was granted 2 increments on 01.05.1998 at Rs. 250 each as annual increment and promotional increment and his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 8000/-(Rs. 7500 + Rs 250 + Rs. 250), promotional increment in terms of para 1313 and annual increment in terms of para 1318 of IREC. He was also entitled to basic pay with annual increment as Rs. 8250 as on 01.05.1999 and Rs. 8500 as on 01.05.2000. He retired on superannuation on 31.10.2000. Although his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 8000/- as on 01.05.1998 but the same was reduced to Rs. 7500/- after 11 months without issuing any order and without any opportunity of being heard. The husband of the applicant submitted representation on 13.04.1999 to the Dy. Chief Personnel Officer (Gazetted), Maligaon, N.F. Railway and regularly represented thereafter including raising grievance in CPGRAM to remove anomalies in pay fixation being a recurring and continuous cause of action in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors. [1995 SCC (5) 628]. However, his claim has been rejected by impugned speaking order dated 04.03.2024 against which the deceased employee had approached this Tribunal. He expired during the pendency of the O.A. on 06.02.2025.

As per Dr. G.J. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, the respondents could not decide on the representation of the deceased husband against reduction of pay from Rs. 8000-7500/- and ultimately by letter dated 04.03.2024 decided that his pay was fixed on promotion to ACM Gr. B post as Rs. 7500/-. As per the applicant, he husband was never posted as ACM, Gr. B and his posting as AVO/T was with the approval of Railway Board.

Respondents have filed their written statement and states that the matter is barred by limitation as the issue is more than 27 years old as on date. Moreover, it is a settled law that a stale or dead claim cannot be revived through belated representations and its responses, if any, from the Administrative Authorities. In this case the husband of the applicant has filed this Original Application mainly to pay fixed as Rs. 8000/- on promotion as Assistant Vigilance Officer/Traffic w.e.f 07.04.1998 and payments made to applicant accordingly be restored and correct pay fixed upto 31/10/2000. As per extant law, the issue of limitation or delay and latches should be considered with reference to the Original cause of action. They have also cited the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No.1577 of 2019 (Union of India & Ors-Vs- C.Girija & Ors), Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1414 and Union of India vs. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 and Rattan Chand Samanta Vs Union of India, [1994 SCC (L&S) 182)].

They further states that the husband of the applicant had lodged a Complaint dated 24.01.2024 with CPGRAMS (Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System) Portal which was taken up by the General Manager (Personnel )/Maligaon and accordingly, a detail reply to his complaint was served to the husband of the applicant vide letter dated 04.03.2024, wherein it has been mentioned that after thorough examination of the case as per records, it is found that the pay as fixed on promotion to Gr. B. and on his retirement are in order. The respondents have also brought our notice apropos pay fixation on promotion and prior to promotion of the deceased husband of the applicant in Group-B as follows:

We have heard Dr. G.J. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R. Hazarika, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents and perused the judgments placed by the parties. We have also scrutinized the entire conspectus of the case.

The respondents' preliminary objection regarding limitation is legally untenable. The law regarding errors in pay fixation and subsequent pension calculations has been explicitly settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. [1995 SCC (5) 628] [1995 SCC (5) 628] and subsequently reinforced in Union Of India & Anr vs Tarsem Singh on 13 August, 2008.

The Apex Court has ruled that a proper pay fixation is a right that arises every month when the salary or pension is calculated. If an employee's pay is incorrectly fixed or reduced, it results in a continuous wrong that gives rise to a recurring and continuous cause of action every month [M.R. Gupta (supra)]. While the recovery of very old arrears may be restricted by the court based on equity, the claim to correct the underlying pay scale and adjust the ongoing pension cannot be dismissed as a stale claim. The record indicates a significant administrative oversight by the respondents. The impugned speaking order dated 04.03.2024 states that the late employee's pay was fixed at Rs. 7,500/- based on a promotion to the post of "ACM Group B." However, the undisputed service history shows that the employee was never posted as an Assistant Commercial Manager (ACM); rather, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Vigilance Officer (AVO/T/HQ) with the explicit approval of the Railway Board. An administrative order based on an incorrect understanding of basic service facts cannot be sustained under the law.

The late employee’s basic pay was Rs. 7,500/- prior to his promotion. Upon being promoted to the higher scale of Rs. 7,500–12,000/-, he exercised his option to defer fixation until his next regular increment date (01.05.1998) under the provisions of the IREC. On that date, he was entitled to both his regular annual increment (Para 1318) and his promotional increment (Para 1313). The addition of these two increments accurately brought his basic pay to Rs. 8,000/-. Reducing his pay back to Rs. 7,500/- after eleven months without a written order, notice, or a personal hearing is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [(2015) 4 SCC 334] has explicitly ruled that retroactive pay reductions and financial recoveries from retired employees, conducted in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation on their part, are impermissible in law. The late employee spent his post-retirement life representing his case, and his widow, Smt. Runu Bhadra, has had to continue this legal challenge to protect her family pension. The respondents' actions are factually incorrect and legally unsustainable.

In view of the above findings, this Original Application is allowed. The impugned speaking order dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure-A/1) is hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to restore the late employee’s correct basic pay fixation at Rs. 8,000/- w.e.f. 01.05.1998, and sequentially update his annual increments to Rs. 8,250/-(w.e.f. 01.05.1999) and Rs. 8,500/- (w.e.f. 01.05.2000) up to his date of retirement on 31.10.2000. The Respondents shall calculate and refund all financial amounts recovered from the late employee’s retiral benefits or pension to the substituted applicant, Smt. Runu Bhadra, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Respondents are further directed to re-fix the regular Family Pension of the substituted applicant, Smt. Runu Bhadra, based on the corrected last pay drawn of her late husband.

Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.