Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Rokkam Ramanadha Rao vs South Eastern Railway on 19 February, 2026
1 O.A. No. 350/1282/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
O.A. No. 350/1282/2025
Date of Hearing: 27.01.2026
Date of Order: 19.02.2026
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Diwakar Singh, Judicial Member
Rokkam Ramanadha Rao, son of Late
Rokkam Gunnayya aged About 70
years, worked as Ch. Office Supdt:
under Workshop Personnel Officer,
Kharagpur, retired on 30.06.2015 (FN),
residing At Door No.D-1, Aditya
Homes, Radha Krishna Nagar,
Srikakulam, Pin:532001(AP).
......... Applicant
-Versus-
1. Union of India, service through the
General Manager, S.E.Railway, 11,
Garden Reach Road, Kolkata: 700043
2. The Principal Chief Personnel
Officer, S. E.Railway, 11, Garden
Reach Rd: Kolkata:700043
3. The Chief Works Manager,
S.E.Railway, Kharagpur: 721301
4. The Dy. Chief Accounts
Officer(W/S), S.E.Railway,
Kharagpur:721301;
5. The Principal, Suprv: Training
Centre, S.E.Railway, Kharagpur:
721301
6. The Workshop Personnel Officer,
S.E.Railway, Kharagpur:721301
7. The Sr. Personnel Officer(HQ),
S.E.Railway, 11, Garden Reach Rd.,
Kolkata:700043.
.......Respondents
For The Applicant(s): Mr. D. K. Mukhopadhyay; Counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. S. C. Prasad; Counsel
Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA
UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65=
133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone=
d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2
c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=
87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7
e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA
JHA Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 16:19:37+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 O.A. No. 350/1282/2025
ORDER
Per: Mr. Diwakar Singh, Member (J)
Heard Ld. Counsel on both the sides.
2. This application has been taken up by the Single Bench in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 10.09.2021 issued under Sub- section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and since no complicated question of law is involved.
3. The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the action of the respondents in effecting recovery of Rs. 39,327/- from his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) on the ground of alleged excess payment of Training Allowance beyond the permissible tenure in an ex-cadre post, and seeking refund of the recovered amount along with interest. The applicant has sought the following relief(s):-
"a) An order be passed directing the respondent authorities to quash the order of recovery as well as to refund the amount of Rs.39,327/-(Rupees Thirty nine thousand three hundred and twenty seven only) which has already been recovered from Gratuity, at the earliest.
(b) An order be passed directing the respondent authorities to pay the interest as per prevailing rate of interest on Rs.39,327/-(Rupees Thirty nine thousand three hundred twenty seven only) from 01.07.2015 to the date of payment.
(c) An order be passed to finalise the payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, since the Applicant is a Sr. Citizen and crossed 70 yrs. of age.
(d) Any further Order or Orders as to your Lordships may deem fit and proper."
Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA
UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2 c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7 e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 16:19:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 O.A. No. 350/1282/2025 FACTS OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was appointed in the South Eastern Railway on 24.06.1984 as a Junior Clerk and, in the normal course of service progression, was promoted to the post of Chief Office Superintendent with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-. While serving in the said capacity, he was posted on 20.04.2006 (Annexure A/2) on stop-gap basis as Establishment Instructor under the Supervisor Training Centre, Kharagpur, and was granted Training Allowance at the rate of 15% of his basic pay. Subsequently, upon empanelment, his posting was regularized vide memorandum dated 02.02.2007 (Annexure A/4), wherein it was stipulated that the tenure in the ex-cadre post shall not exceed eight years. 4.1. The applicant continued in the said post and, anticipating his superannuation on 30.06.2015, submitted an application dated 27.12.2014 (Annexure A/8) seeking repatriation to his parent cadre. When no action was taken, he was compelled to file an application under the RTI Act on 18.03.2015 (Annexure A/8). Thereafter, he was repatriated and relieved from the ex-cadre post on 31.03.2015 (Annexure A/11) and joined his parent cadre on 01.04.2015.
4.2. Upon his retirement on 30.06.2015, the applicant noticed that an amount of Rs. 39,327/- had been recovered from his gratuity. The respondents, vide communication dated 31.03.2016 (Annexure A/14) and that dated 22.06.2019 (Annexure A/15), clarified that the recovery was effected on account of excess Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2 c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7 e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 16:19:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 O.A. No. 350/1282/2025 payment of Training Allowance beyond the permissible tenure of eight years in the ex-cadre post.
4.3. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking refund of the recovered amount along with interest.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
5. The applicant contends that the recovery is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the applicant was posted in the ex-cadre post by the respondents themselves and continued therein due to administrative exigencies, despite his repeated requests seeking repatriation. It is further submitted that the applicant had no role in determining or extending his tenure in the ex-cadre post and cannot be held responsible for any alleged excess payment.
5.1. The applicant has also contended that no show cause notice was issued prior to effecting recovery from his gratuity, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 5.2. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein it was held that recovery from retired employees or employees belonging to Group C and Group D service would be impermissible in law, especially where the excess payment was not attributable to any fault or misrepresentation by the employee.
Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2 c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7 e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 16:19:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 O.A. No. 350/1282/2025 5.3. The applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2022) 5 SCC 545, wherein the Hon'ble Court reiterated that recovery from retired employees in the absence of misrepresentation or fraud is impermissible and inequitable. 5.4. Further reliance has been placed upon the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016 (Annexure A/16) issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, which incorporates the law laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra) and directs that recoveries in such situations should not be made.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
6. The respondents have contended that the applicant was posted in the ex-cadre post with a clear stipulation that the tenure shall not exceed eight years, and, therefore, payment of Training Allowance beyond that period was irregular. It is submitted that the applicant continued to draw Training Allowance beyond the permissible tenure and the excess amount was recovered in accordance with applicable rules.
6.1. It is further submitted that the applicant, being an Establishment Instructor, was aware of the applicable rules and conditions, and, therefore, cannot claim ignorance. 6.2. The respondents have also raised the issue of limitation and have contended that the present Original Application is barred by limitation.
Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2 c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7 e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 16:19:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 O.A. No. 350/1282/2025 ANALYSIS
7. We have carefully considered the pleadings and submissions of both the parties and examined the records placed before us. 7.1. The issue that arises for consideration is whether recovery of Rs. 39,327/- from the gratuity of the applicant after his retirement, on account of alleged excess payment of Training Allowance, is legally sustainable.
7.2. It is an admitted position that:
(i) The applicant was posted in the ex-cadre post by the respondents.
(ii) The applicant continued in the said post under the orders of the respondents.
(iii) The applicant made representations seeking repatriation prior to retirement.
(iv) The recovery was effected from his gratuity after retirement.
(v) There is no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct on the part of the applicant.
7.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra), has laid down the following categories wherein recovery would be impermissible:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (Group C and Group D).
Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA
UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2 c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7 e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 16:19:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 O.A. No. 350/1282/2025
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year.
(iii) Recovery where excess payment has been made for a long period without fault of the employee.
7.4. The present case clearly falls within the aforesaid categories, as recovery has been made from a retired Group 'C' employee from his gratuity, without any allegation of misrepresentation or fraud. 7.5. Further, in Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that recovery from retired employees, in absence of misrepresentation or fraud, would be impermissible and inequitable. The Hon'ble Court observed that an employee cannot be penalized for errors committed by the employer.
7.6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that recoveries in such circumstances are arbitrary and violative of principles of fairness and equity.
7.7. In the present case, the continuation of the applicant in the ex-cadre post beyond the stipulated tenure was entirely within the control of the respondents. The applicant cannot be held responsible for administrative lapses of the respondents. The respondents, being the employer, were under an obligation to ensure compliance with tenure rules. Having failed to do so, they cannot penalize the applicant by effecting recovery after retirement. Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2 c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7 e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 16:19:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 O.A. No. 350/1282/2025 7.8. Further, the recovery was effected from gratuity without issuance of any show cause notice, which is contrary to settled principles of natural justice. The respondents have also failed to demonstrate any fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct on the part of the applicant.
7.9. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel, the recovery effected from the gratuity of the applicant is legally unsustainable.
CONCLUSION
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in light of the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the recovery of Rs. 39,327/- from the gratuity of the applicant is held to be illegal and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the instant O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount of Rs. 39,327/- to the applicant within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the O.A. stands disposed of. There will be no order as to cost.
(Diwakar Singh) Member (J) UJ Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2 c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7 e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 16:19:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0