Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Sunil Kumar Sinha vs East Central Railway on 6 January, 2023
1 O.A. No. 050/00693/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
O.A. No. 050/00
050/00693/2021
Order dated: 6th January, 2023.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. S.K. SINHA, MEMBER [A]
Sunil Kumar Sinha, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Suresh Kumar Sinha,
Traffic Inspector (HQ) DAnapur, Resident of Flat No. 31 Block, Road
No.3, New Patliputra Colony District-
District Patna
Patna-800013.
.......... Applicant.
By Advocate :-: Shri N.N. Singh.
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, E.C Railway,
Hajipur -844101.
2. The General Manager,, Personnel, E.C. Railway, Hajipur -844101.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, E.C. Railway, Danapur, Patna
Patna--
801105.
4. The Sr. Divisional Finance Manage
Manager,
r, E.C. Railway, Danapur,
Patna
Patna-801105.
5. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, E.C. Railway, Danapur,
Patna
Patna-801105.
......... Respondents.
By Advocate :-
: Shri H.P. Singh
O R D E R (O R A L)
1. Instant OA has been preferred against the order dated 22nd June 2020 relating to recovery of excesses payment of Rs.5,99,004/ Rs.5,99,004/--
(Five lakhs lakh ninety nine thousand four only) in 19 equal installment from the pay of applicant. The applicant has prayed for direction to the respondents to refund the recovered amount with 18% interest. 2 O.A. No. 050/00693/2022
2. Applicant joined Railway Service on 24.08.1992 as Traffic Apprentice in Group 'C' and retired on 31st January 2022. Prior rior to his retirement applicant's pay was verified and during verification it was noted that he was wrongly granted annual increment from 2001 to 2003. His pay was recast in terms of the revised date of annual increment and the order was issued for recov recovery ery of the excess amount already paid.. The applicant made representation before the respondents stating that the recovery was untenable in terms of judgement judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in case of State of Punjab Vs Rafiq Masih which has been circulat circulated ed by the DOPT and Railway Board. The respondents however rejected the same and passed impugned order.
3. Heard.
4. Ld counsel for applicant submits that the order of respondents was against the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs Rafiq Masih. The applicant retired as Group 'C' employee and recovery was made for the period from 20 2001 01 onwards till 2021. He submitted that this Tribunal had had, earlierr in OA No. 60/2021 which was based on similar facts facts, quashed and d set aside the order of recovery and directed the respondents to refund the recovered amount. Ld counsel press pressing the OA requestss to quash the order for recovery and order for direction to respondents to refund the amount recovered from his salary during g 2020 to 2021 in 19 installments.
3 O.A. No. 050/00693/2022
5. Shri H.P. Singh, Sr. SC appearing for respondents submits that the applicant had remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for 592 days between 1995 and 2002 and the respondents, without taking note of the fact of his unauthorised absence absence, had decided the date of his annual increment in 2001 to 2003. However However, when the period of unauthorised absence was adjusted as leave without pay the date of increment had to be postponed postponed. The applicant's pay was recast as per revised date of increment and the excess amount already paid was ordered to be recovered recovered. The applicant was given due notice before the recovery of excess payment from his salary.. Ld counsel for respondents submits that though applicant is still ill in Group 'C' the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Rafiq fiq Masih may not apply in this case case.. Ld counsel submitted that the order of Hon'ble Apex Court was meant to avoid hardship to low paid employees and the applicant w was getting a handsome salary.
6. Considered the submissions submission and materials on record record.. The applicant has relied on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in State of Punjab Vs Rafiq Masih to fortify his case. In Rafiq Masih case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court enumerated following situation situationss in which the recovery was impermissible:-
"(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class Class-III and class -IV IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retired within one year, of the order rder 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.4 O.A. No. 050/00693/2022
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully has been required to discharge duties ies 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."
7. DOPT and Railway Board have circulated the order of Hon'ble Apex Court to deal with the cases of excess payment to gov government ernment servants in accordance with the judgement (Annexure A/5). It has been admitted by both counsel for applicant and counsel for respondents espondents that applicant is a Group Group 'C' employee and recovery made from his salary was in lieu of over payment made earlier earlier from 2001 to 2020 over a period of 19 years.
years Further, the period of recovery continued up to year 2021 while applicant retired on 31st January 2022. Hence Hence, the recovery ecovery of Rs.5,90,004/ does not appear in accordance with the law settled in the Rs.5,90,004/-
case ase of Rafiq Masih (supra).
(supra). It deems to be in the interest of justice to quash and set aside the order of recovery (Annexure A/1) in lieu of the overpayment earlier. Accordingly order of recovery dated 22.06.2020 (Annexure Annexure A/1) A/1 in lieu of overpayment is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the salary of applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
8. The O.A. stands disposed of accordin accordingly. No costs.
[S.K. Sinha] Member [A] mks