Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Rajan Ali vs East Central Railway on 7 January, 2026
1 OA 736/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH
PATNA
O.A. 050/00736/2023
Reserved on : 24.12.2025
Pronounced on : 07.01.2026
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member
In the matter of :
Rajan Ali,
aged about 60 years, (Male), Son of Md. Idris, Resident of
Office Colony, Post Officer Road, Dinapur cum Khagaul,
Patna, Bihar at present resides at Mohalla- Sabajpura, Gowar
Toli, West of Maszid, PS- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna-
801505. Retired employ as TECH(C-W)-I Mechanical DNR-
Danapur.
.............Applicant
VS.
1. The Union of India, through General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hazipur, Pin- 844102.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Danapur, Pin- 801105.
3. The Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, East Central Railway,
Danapur, Pin- 801105.
4. The Sr. Divisional Personal Manager, East Central Railway,
Danapur, Pin- 801105.
........ Respondents
For The Applicant(s): Mr. Uttam Kumar Mishra, Counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. H. R. Singh, ASC
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65=
1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone=
d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f9970c
ce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar,
SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc53
3ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL
LAL
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.01.12 17:16:59+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
2 OA 736/2023
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
"(i) The withheld amount of salary retardation of Rs. 294285/- to the applicant after quashing the letter No. E/C & W/Sr. Tech/ Rajan Ali/ 22 dated 02.02.2023 issued by establishment Samadi.
(ii) To give a direction to pay 10% interest there on withheld amount.
(iii) To pass such other order/ direction as your honour may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the ends of justice."
2. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case as stated by the applicant in the OA, are delineated herein under :-
The applicant superannuated from Railway service on 28.02.2023 while holding the post of Technician (C&W)-I (Fitter) under the East Central Railway. Upon retirement, a Retired Railway Official Identity Card dated 28.02.2023 was duly issued to him.
After superannuation, the applicant was sanctioned pension and other retiral dues by the competent authority. However, at the time of settlement of retiral benefits, the applicant was orally informed by the office authorities that a sum of Rs. 2,94,285/- had been deducted/withheld on account of alleged salary retardation. It is submitted by the applicant that no written order, show cause notice, or communication regarding withholding or deduction of Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f9970c ce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc53 3ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.12 17:16:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 3 OA 736/2023 the said amount was ever served upon him prior to or after his retirement.
Aggrieved by the arbitrary deduction, the applicant sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 22.03.2023. In response, the Public Information Officer-cum-Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur, vide reply dated 18.04.2023, informed the applicant that the amount of Rs. 2,94,285/-
had been withheld vide Letter No. E/C & W/Sr. Tech/Rajan Ali/22 dated 02.02.2023, towards salary retardation. Thereafter, the applicant again applied under the RTI Act on 22.05.2023 seeking a copy of the aforesaid letter dated 02.02.2023. Upon receipt of the same, it became evident that the said letter provided for deduction of Rs. 2,94,285/- from the retiral dues of the applicant.
The applicant had submitted a representation dated 20.04.2023 to Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, requesting them to consider his grievance and to refund the withheld amount of Rs. 2,94,285/-. Despite such representation, no decision has been communicated to the applicant till date, compelling him to approach this Tribunal.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had already superannuated on 28.02.2023, and after retirement, he ceased to be an employee of the respondents. Therefore, any recovery or deduction from retiral dues without due process is impermissible in law.
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f9970c ce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc53 3ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.12 17:16:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 4 OA 736/2023 3.1 Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the alleged deduction of Rs. 2,94,285/- has been effected without issuing any show cause notice or granting any opportunity of hearing to the applicant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
3.2 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged order dated 02.02.2023, on the basis of which recovery has been made, was never served upon the applicant, either before retirement or thereafter. Non-service of the order renders the recovery void and unenforceable.
3.3 Learned Counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors.
vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that recovery from retired employees or from their retiral dues is impermissible, when the employee is not at fault for excess payment during his service period.
3.4 It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the applicant that the alleged salary retardation, even if assumed to be correct, pertains to the service period and no misconduct or misrepresentation has ever been attributed to the applicant. Hence, recovery after retirement is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The action of the respondents in deducting Rs. 2,94,285/- from the retiral dues of the applicant is illegal, unjustified and liable to be quashed, and the applicant is Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f9970c ce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc53 3ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.12 17:16:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 5 OA 736/2023 entitled to refund of the said amount along with consequential benefits.
4. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant, i.e., Rajan Ali, Ex-Technician-I (C&W), Mechanical Department, retired from Railway service on 28.02.2023. As per the prescribed procedure, prior to final settlement of retiral dues, the Service Book and Leave Account of the applicant were thoroughly examined and verified by the concerned department before being forwarded to the Accounts Department for vetting and authorization of settlement payment. 4.1 It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondents that during examination of the Service Book, it came to the notice of the department that excess pay had been wrongly fixed at the time of granting MACP benefits on completion of 10 and 20 years of regular service. The applicant was erroneously granted pay fixation of Rs. 8190 + 2000 w.e.f. 27.09.2008, whereas he was actually entitled to pay fixation of Rs. 7450 + 2000 w.e.f. 11.04.2009, being the date on which he completed 20 years of regular service under the 2nd MACP. As a result of the above error, the applicant was paid excess salary from 27.09.2008 till the issuance of pay correction letter dated 02.02.2023, which necessitated correction of pay. 4.2 Learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that while issuing the Pay Correction Letter dated 02.02.2023, the respondents not only corrected the erroneous MACP fixation but Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f9970c ce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc53 3ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.12 17:16:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 6 OA 736/2023 also extended to the applicant the benefit of pay fixation on promotion after 01.01.2016 in terms of RBE No. 212/2019, which had not been reflected earlier in the Service Book. Thus, the pay was refixed strictly in accordance with applicable rules and instructions. It is submitted that on the basis of the said Pay Correction Letter dated 02.02.2023, the Accounts Department vetted the Service Book after verifying all pay fixations, and thereafter, the applicant's final settlement payment was duly authorized.
4.3 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that upon re-
fixation of pay, the total excess amount paid to the applicant was worked out to Rs. 2,94,285/-, which was recovered prior to release of final settlement payment at the time of retirement, strictly as per rules.
4.4 It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondents that the applicant subsequently sought a copy of the pay correction letter under the Right to Information Act, which was duly supplied to him, thereby establishing that there was no concealment or procedural irregularity on the part of the respondents. 4.5 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the recovery effected is a result of correction of a clerical/administrative error in pay fixation and not on account of any punitive action. The recovery was made after proper verification and vetting and before final settlement, and therefore, does not suffer from any illegality. Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f9970c ce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc53 3ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.12 17:16:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 7 OA 736/2023
5. Heard rival contentions of the parties and perused material on record. I have considered the matter in its entirety and come to the following conclusion:
5.1 The undisputed facts are that the applicant superannuated from Railway service on 28.02.2023 from the post of Technician (C&W)-I (Fitter) and his pension and retiral dues were processed thereafter. It is also not in dispute that an amount of Rs. 2,94,285/-
was deducted from the applicant's retiral dues on account of alleged excess payment arising out of pay re-fixation relating to MACP benefits.
5.2 The respondents have contended that during scrutiny of the Service Book prior to retirement, an error in MACP pay fixation was detected, which resulted in excess payment from 27.09.2008, and that the pay was corrected vide letter dated 02.02.2023, followed by recovery of the excess amount before final settlement. But the fact remains that the service book is in the custody of the respondents and not the applicant. So, any delayed scrutiny and correction in the pay fixation cannot be attributed to the applicant. 5.3 On the other hand, the applicant has categorically asserted that no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was ever granted to him before effecting the recovery, and that the alleged pay correction letter dated 02.02.2023 was never served upon him prior to retirement, and came to his knowledge only after seeking information under the RTI Act.
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f9970c ce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc53 3ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.12 17:16:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 8 OA 736/2023 5.4 From the record, it is evident that the recovery has been effected from the retiral dues of the applicant after his superannuation, and there is no allegation of misrepresentation, fraud or suppression of facts on the part of the applicant in securing the alleged excess payment. The excess payment, if any, occurred due to an administrative error in pay fixation by the department. 5.5 The law on the issue of recovery from retired employees is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, has clearly held that recovery of excess payment is impermissible in the following situations, inter alia:
"(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the same principle in Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 7 SCC 353, holding that recovery of excess pay after retirement, particularly when the Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f9970c ce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc53 3ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.12 17:16:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 9 OA 736/2023 employee is not at fault, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
5.6 In the present case, the applicant had already retired on 28.02.2023, and the recovery of Rs. 2,94,285/- has been made from his retiral dues without affording him any opportunity of hearing.
Such recovery, cannot be sustained in law in view of the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court because there is no allegation of any misrepresentation or fraud attributable to the applicant. It cannot be dismissed as a clerical error because the ultimate pay fixation and orders are duly approved and issued by the competent authority.
5.7 This Tribunal is of the considered view that non-service of the pay correction/recovery order upon the applicant prior to effecting recovery amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the impugned action unsustainable. While the respondents were justified in correcting the pay fixation prospectively in accordance with rules, the retrospective recovery from retiral dues of a retired employee is legally impermissible. 5.8 In view of the foregoing discussion and settled legal position, the Original Application is allowed. The action of the respondents in recovering an amount of Rs. 2,94,285/- from the retiral dues of the applicant is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount of Rs. 2,94,285/- to the applicant, Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f9970c ce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc53 3ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.12 17:16:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 10 OA 736/2023 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
5.9 Accordingly, OA stands allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) Administrative Member sl Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f9970c ce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc53 3ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.12 17:16:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0