Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Satish Chandra vs Northern Railway on 19 November, 2025
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00481/2023 Satish Chandra Vs. UOI & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00481/2023
Dated, this 19th day of November, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Satish Chandra, around 59 years, S/o Sri Bhoomi Nath Nayak, R/o
A-963/1, A-Block, Indira Nagar, Lucknow Pin-226016.
..... Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway,
Head Quarter Office, Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj,
Lucknow.
3. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Hazratganj,
Lucknow.
4. The Sr. Divisional Engineer (Coordination), Northern Railway,
Hazratganj, Lucknow.
5. The Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj,
Lucknow.
6. The Assistant Divisional Engineer--I, Northern Railway, Lucknow.
......Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to revision of pay and consequent recovery, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
"1. To quash the impugned order dated 12.10.2023, contained as Annexure No A-1 to this OA, with all consequential benefits.
2. To direct the respondents not to reduce the pay and impose any kind of recovery and recovered amount if any, may be refunded along with interest @ 12 p.a. from the date of due till the actual date of payment.
3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.Page 1 of 4
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00481/2023 Satish Chandra Vs. UOI & Ors.
4. Cost of the present case as the applicant has unnecessarily been dragged into litigation."
2. The applicant was initially appointed to the post of PWM (Group 'C') on 24.09.1990 and his date of retirement was 31.05.2024. Aggrieved with the order dated 12.10.2023 revising his pay and ordering recovery, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. The applicant contends that as the post of PWM/Sr PWS was merged with the post of JE-I, such merger cannot be regarded as promotion and, therefore, revision of pay by the respondents vide order dated 12.10.2023 by changing the date of financial upgradation already granted with effect from 24.09.2010 under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) to 01.09.2018 is not justified. It is further contended that the recovery as consequence of such pay revision is impermissible in terms of the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (2015) 4 SCC 334.
4. The respondents state that 3rd MACP should have accrued to the applicant from 01.09.2018, i.e., 10 years after grant of 2nd MACP on 01.09.2008, but it was erroneously granted on 01.09.2008. It is contended that the mistake was rectified in light of the Railway Board's letter dated 31.08.2022 and show cause notice dated 29.08.2023 was issued to the applicant and the order dated 12.10.2023 issued thereafter. It is further contended that the applicant's status as Group 'C' employee is irrelevant as he derives satisfactory salary and no harsh recovery will be caused and, therefore, Rafiq Masih (supra) is not attracted in the applicant's case.
5. We have heard both the parties.
6.1 The subject matter of recoveries has been addressed comprehensively by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). Page 2 of 4 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00481/2023 Satish Chandra Vs. UOI & Ors. In this case, the Apex Court was considering those cases wherein the private respondents were beneficiaries of a mistake committed by the employer, and on account of the said unintentional mistake, employees were in receipt of monetary benefits, beyond their due. Another essential feature in those cases was that the employees were as innocent as their employers, in the wrongful determination of their inflated emoluments - that is - they had not furnished any incorrect information which led to the mistake of making the higher payment, they had not made any misrepresentation, nor they had committed any fraud. The issue for adjudication was whether all the private respondents (employees), against whom an order of recovery (of the excess amount) has been made, should be exempted in law, from the reimbursement of the same to the employer. The issue was settled by the Apex Court vide judgment dated 18.12.2014 in following manner:
"12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(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."
(emphasis supplied) Page 3 of 4 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00481/2023 Satish Chandra Vs. UOI & Ors. 6.2 In the instant case it is not in dispute that the applicant was a Group 'C' employee. It is also not in dispute that the respondents, on review of the applicant's service records, revised his pay with effect from 24.09.2010 and ordered recovery vide the change memo dated 12.10.2023. It is evident that in recovery from the applicant, a Group 'C' employee, has been effected within one year of his due date of superannuation and it is for a period in excess of 5 years which is not permissible in terms of the criteria laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra). 7.1 In view of the foregoing, the order dated 12.10.2023 is quashed and set aside to the extent it orders recovery from the applicant and the respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered, if any, from the applicant without interest within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order.
7.2 The applicant shall have the liberty to prefer a fresh representation to the respondents on the matter of revision of pay within two weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order and the respondents are directed to consider and decide such fresh representation, if preferred, within a period of three months from the date of its receipt by way of a reasoned and speaking order to be communicated to the applicant.
7.3 This OA is disposed of in the above terms.
7.4 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
7.5 The parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Page 4 of 4
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela Date: 2025.11.20
14:19:32 +05'30'