Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ashok Chandra Ojha vs North Central Railway on 25 November, 2025
Reserved on 04.11.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 25th day of November, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Original Application No. 1296 of 2024
Ashok Chandra Ojha aged about 68 years S/o Late Shri Baboo Lal
Ojha retd. As MCM under CWM's Office, Jhansi, R/o H.No. 127,
Narsingharao Toriya, City Jhansi (U.P.)
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Shri R N Joshi and
Shri R P Pal
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, N.C. Rly, Subedarganj,
Prayagraj (Allahabad) (U.P.)
2. Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer HQ Subedarganj
Prayagraj (Allahabad)
3. Dy. Chief Finance Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer (W/S) North
Central Railway, Jhansi.
4. Chief Workshop Manager, Wagon Repair Workshop, North Central
Railway, Jhansi.
5. The Senior Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch
Khandaraogate Fort, Jhansi.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri S C Mishra, Shri Rishi Kumar and Shri J K
Mishra
ORDER
Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Shri R N Joshi and Shri R P Pal learned counsel for the applicant and Shri J K Mishra, Shri S C Mishra and Shri Rishi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, RITU RAJ SINGH were present at the time of hearing.
1|Page
2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:
"(i) To issue order or direction to Respondents in suitable nature to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 r/w bank statement of July 2024 passed by Respondent No.2 (Annexure A-I)
(ii) To issue order or direction to the Respondents in suitable nature thereby directing them to not make any further recovery from pension saving account of the pensioner and whatever recovery so made from pension saving account may be refunded with admissible interest.
(iii) to issue any other suitable order or directions in favour of the applicant as deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case
(iv) to award cost of application in favour of the humble applicant."
3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the order dated 30.08.2024 r/w his bank statement of July 2024 passed by the respondent no 2. The applicant has contended that a recovery of Rs. 10,400/- per month is initiated directly from his Pension Saving Account as per the aforesaid bank statement without showing any cogent reasons. Terming the recovery as illegal and unreasonable, the applicant has pleaded for a direction to the respondents to stop the same and refund the entire recovered amount to him along with admissible interest. Respondents on the other hand have filed their counter affidavit and through the same, they have contended that the recovery is absolutely just and necessary as overpayment was made to the applicant subsequent to his retirement and therefore has sought dismissal of the OA.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. Disclosing a brief history of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a retired person and a recovery of Rs. 10,400/- per month is initiated directly from his RITU RAJ Pension saving account as per the statement of July 2024 of the Bank SINGH concerned without showing any cogent reason. The recovery is being
2|Page made after lapse of 08 years from his retirement without showing any reasons and the same is liable to be refunded in light of RBE No 72 of 2016 dated 22.06.2016 issued pursuant to DoPT OM No 1- 18/3/2015-Estt./Pay - 1 dated 02.03.2016. The applicant even preferred a representation agitating the same but for no avail. It was argued that the applicant has rendered more than 36 years of service after which he was retired and Pension was issued to him but arbitrarily, recovery has been initiated which is not in accordance with law. Thus, referring to entire facts and circumstances of the case, prayer was made to allow the OA thereby directing the respondents to refund the entire recovered amount to the applicant along with interest.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and referring to his counter affidavit, he argued that no recovery is made from the pension of the applicant by the department concerned and as such relief claimed in the matter has no substance. Referring to his supplementary counter affidavit, he also argued that if there has been any recovery made, the same has been made by the bank authorities concerned and the department has no role to play in it.
7. Shri J K Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no 5 also vehemently opposed the contention of the applicant and referring to his counter affidavit, he argued that the basic pension of the applicant was calculated as per the 7th CPC but in the pension payment order dated 25.10.2016 issued by the railway department, it was not mentioned that the basic pension of the applicant has been calculated as per 7th CPC, and due to this reason, the bank calculated the pension on the basis of 6th CPC instead of 7th CPC and due to this reason, the applicant received more amount than what he was entitled to, which is shown from the statement of account of the applicant from 01.10.2016 to 26.07.2024. The applicant received more amount as Rs 31,58,495/- but the same was never informed to the RITU RAJ respondents' authorities but as per audit report dated 24.05.2024, SINGH when the railways authorities found that the applicant received more
3|Page amount, the bank was also informed and it was directed to recover the excess amount paid to the applicant, vide letter dated 27.05.2024. It was argued that the applicant has received the total amount of Rs 52,89,424/- instead of Rs. 21,30,929/-, thus as per the bank guidelines and as per the undertaking submitted by the applicant on 09.03.2017, the respondents are well entitled to recover the excess amount from the applicant and no illegality can be attributed to this. Further, the Master Circular dated 01.07.2015 issued by the Reserve Bank of India in this regard also enables the respondents to recover the amount from the applicant. Thus, it was argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the recovery made from the applicant and thus the instant OA is liable to be dismissed.
8. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant reiterating the facts as have been narrated in the OA. To further substantiate his case, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following case laws:
i. Judgment dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014 titled State of Punjab &Ors Vs Rafiq Masih ii. Judgment dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo Vs the District Judge, Cuttack reported in 2025 INSC 449. Similarly, substantiating their case, learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance upon the following case laws:
i. Judgment dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No 3500 of 2006 titled High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Others Vs Jagdev Singh ii. Judgment dated 05.08.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ A No 61527 of 2012 titled Keshav Singh Vs Union of India and others RITU RAJ iii. Judgment dated 17.08.2012 passed by the Hon'ble SINGH Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No 5899 of
4|Page 2012 titled Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs State of Uttarakhand and others.
9. I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the records and perused the case laws relied upon.
10. As the brief facts of the case have already been narrated above, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. It is evident from the records that the applicant had retired after attaining the age of superannuation and after retirement, recovery has been made from his pension saving account. It is also established from the pleadings exchanged across the Bar that no show cause notice or intimation or any reasonable opportunity of hearing was granted to the applicant before initiating the recovery from him. Being aggrieved with the same, the applicant has filed this OA and straightway has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) claiming that his case is squarely covered with the ration laid down in the said judgment. Thus, at the outset, it is pertinent to record the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) which is as follows:
"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, RITU RAJ SINGH
5|Page 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".
Thus, in accordance with the aforesaid quotation, recovery of any alleged excess payment is not liable to be made from a group C or Group D employee especially when the employee has not committed any fraud or misrepresentation in getting that alleged excess overpayment. Also, the recovery is absolutely illegal when the employee concerned has not been given any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing before recovery. However, here in the instant case of the applicant, it is pertinent to record that the recovery in question has not been made by the department concerned but rather it has been made at the end of the bank concerned. The bank said to have miscalculated the amount of pension which was liable to be paid to the applicant and due to this reason, an excess payment of Rs. 31,58,495/- was made to the applicant and because of this, a recovery of Rs. 10,400/- per month is being made.
11. At this stage, it would be in the fitness of things to refer to the judgment dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Allahabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 641 of 2024 titled Vishwanath Singh Vs Union of India and others because the same circumstances as prevailing in the instant case of the applicant were operating in the said judgment. In that case also, the overpayment was made to the applicant concerned on the part of the Pension Disbursing Authority i.e., Punjab National Bank itself. For the sake of clarity and better analysis, the entire operative portion of the said judgment is quoted herein below:
"13. Now, the question for adjudication before this Court is as to whether at this belated stage, the Respondent Bank is empowered RITU RAJ to recover the excess amount from the pension of the applicant, SINGH which is said to have been paid in excess to his entitlement.
6|Page
14. This is a case where overpayment of pension paid due to erroneous calculation/payment of pension on the part of Pension Disbursing Authority i.e. Punjab National Bank itself and in case of overpayment erroneously made by the Pension Disbursing Authority, they are required to follow the Instruction of the Reserve Bank of India as all the Banks, save and except the State Bank of Sikkim, are regulated by Reserve Bank of India.
15. One thing, it is admitted that the role of the respondent Bank is only limited to the extent of drawing and disbursing authority, who ensure payment of pension on the basis of PPO by the concerned Department/institution/authority under which the employees had rendered their services. Thus, there is no relationship of the employer and employee between the Bank and the pensioner. That apart, the function of the Bank is being regulated by the master circular/Instruction(s) issued from time to time by the higher authorities of the Bank empowering the Bank to recover the excess amount, which is paid on account of mistake or miscalculation, after giving proper demand notice.
16. After careful examination of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. The State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18]; Syed Abdul Kadir v. The State of Bihar [(2009) 3 SCC 475], Rafiq Masih (supra) as also the Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala [2022 SCC OnLine SC 536]), it goes without saying that the mandate of the Supreme Court not to recover the excess amount is based upon equity, in case the excess payment was not made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee or made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous or where court arrives at the conclusion that the 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.
17. Taking note of the aforenoted settled proposition of law, this Court feels it apt and proper to quote paragraph nos. 13 and 14 of the judgment rendered in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 where the Apex Court has observed as follows:
RITU RAJ SINGH
7|Page "13. We are not convinced that this Court in various judgments referred to hereinbefore has laid down any proposition of law that only if the State or its officials establish that there was misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the recipients of the excess pay, then only the amount paid could be recovered. On the other hand, most of the cases referred to hereinbefore turned on the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases either because the recipients had retired or were on the verge of retirement or were occupying lower posts in the administrative hierarchy
14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "taxpayers' money"
which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc., because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment."
18. Further in the case in hand before making payment of pension, the applicant had already furnished undertaking that he would refund the excess amount paid and thus he is bound by the undertaking. The aforesaid proposition has well explained and propounded by Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of three RITU RAJ SINGH judges in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs.
8|Page Jagdeo Singh, reported in 2016 (14) SCC 267 wherein the Apex Court taking note of the earlier judgment rendered in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has held as under:-
"In case where officers to whom payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded, the officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale, he is bound by the undertaking."
19. This Court after having gone through the Instruction/Guideline issued by the Reserve Bank of India, which is obligated to be followed by the Pension Disbursing Authority/Banks, is of the opinion that the pension is paid to the applicant by the Bank under the scheme for payment of pension by Public Sector Banks; on being acceded, at the request of the pensioner to credit to saving/current account in single name of the pensioner payable to him from time to time. As it falls due for the said purpose, the pensioner executes an undertaking to refund or make good to the Bank any amount to which the pensioner is not entitled or any excess amount which may be credited to the account over that to which the pensioner would be entitled and agrees that the amount, when demanded by the Bank and as due and payable to the Bank shall be conclusive and binding on the pensioners. The pensioners also bind themselves and their legal heirs and agreed to undertake to indemnify the Bank from and against any loss, damage and expenses suffered or incurred by the Bank in so crediting the pension to the account of the pensioner under the scheme and to forthwith pay the same to the Bank and authorized the Bank to recover the amount in respect thereof by debit to the account or any other deposit belonging to the hands of the Bank.
20. It would be apposite to quote the relevant Instruction/Master Circular of the Reserve Bank of India dated 01.07.2015, which deals with the recovery of excess/wrong payment made to the pensioner.
"...11. Details of the uniform procedure evolved for recovery of excess/wrong payments made to pensioners drawing pensions under the Scheme for payment of RITU RAJ SINGH
9|Page pension to Central/Civil/Defence/Railways pensioners through public sector banks, are given below:
i. As soon as the excess/wrong payment made to a pensioner comes to the notice of paying branch, the branch should adjust the same against the amount standing to the credit to the pensioner's account to the extent possible including lump sum arrears payment.
ii. If the entire amount of overpayment cannot be adjusted from the account, the pensioner may be asked to pay forthwith the balance amount of overpayment.
iii. In case the pensioner expresses his inability to pay the amount, the same may be adjusted from the future pension payments to be made to the pensioners. For recovering the overpayment made to the pensioner from his future pension payment In installments 1/3rd of net (pension + relief) payable each month may be recovered unless the pensioner concerned gives consent in writing to pay a higher installment amount.
iv. If the overpayment cannot be recovered from the pensioner due to his death or discontinuance of pension then action has to be taken as per the letter of undertaking given by the pensioner under the scheme.
v. The pensioner may also be advised about the details of over payment/wrong payment and mode of its recovery..."
21. It is further observed that the Master Circular also crystallized that whenever any excess/overpayment is detected, the entire amount thereof should be credited to the government account in lump sum immediately as soon the excess/over payment is due to an error on the part of the Agency Bank. If the excess payment to the Bank due to errors committed by the Government, Banks may take up the matter with full particulars of the cases with respective Government Departments for a quick resolution of the matter.
RITU RAJ SINGH 10 | P a g e
22. The issue with respect to recovery of excess amount has also been brought to the knowledge of the respondent-Bank by official respondents after inspection dated 24.05.2024 due to overpayment in DA @ 164 % instead of 50 % for PPO issued in 7th Pay Commission and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent bank, suggests the applicant submitted a letter of undertaking for recovery on 22.11.2016 and as such, impugned order of recovery is in accordance with the Instruction of the Reserve Bank of India as also in the light of the mandate of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra).
23. So far the contention of the applicant that he has been getting enhanced pension, soon after retirement i.e. 2016 and now at this belated stage, after 08 years any alleged excess amount ought not be recovered, does not find force as the payment of excess pension is a recurring/successive wrong, which gives rise to a distinct and separate cause of action and the wrong or illegality cannot get sanctity or legalized by mere passage of time.
24. This Court is also not oblivious of the fact that the applicant has been getting enhanced pension since long and at this stage, any deduction from the pension would certainly cause hardship but at the same time this fact could not be ignored that the excess payment paid to the applicant is a public money, which belongs neither to the officers, who effected overpayment nor to the recipient. Moreover, the applicant and the Bank do not fall within the definition of employer and employee, rather the Bank was in the role of Pension Disbursing Authority and the pension was being paid pursuant to the Pension Payment Order issued by the Government of India. Thus being an Agency, it is bound by its Circular and the Instruction issued by the Reserve Bank of India, which has never been questioned.
25. Further, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is no help to him. This Court fails to understand that as to why the applicant did not inform the Bank about the excess payment as in the PPO itself, it was mentioned that his basic pension is Rs.55,878/- and after pension commuted, his reduced pension is Rs.33,527/- per month and he was continuously receiving pension more than Rs.1,10,000/- per month, which is even more than his last basic pay i.e. Rs.72,100/-, meaning RITU RAJ SINGH thereby, the applicant is well aware with the fact that he is getting 11 | P a g e excess amount in comparison to his pension amount even then, he kept mum for the last eight years.
26. In view of the afore-noted discussions, this Court does not find any merit in the Original Application and the same stands dismissed with the liberty to the applicant that in case the applicant is not satisfied with the calculation made by the Bank authorities and/or refixation for easy monthly installment, he may file an appropriate application before the respondent-4, who shall look into the matter sympathetically."
12. Thus, as is clear from the aforesaid quotation, identical circumstances as are involved in the instant case of the applicant, were also present in the aforesaid referred case. Since the aforesaid judgment was passed after discussing and relying upon the same case laws and rule positions which has been referred to by the learned counsel for the parties in the instant case viz. the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra), Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) and RBI Circular dated 01.07.2015, thus observations recorded in the aforesaid quoted judgment is very much applicable in the instant case as well.
13. Thus, in view of the discussions held above and strictly taking into consideration the observations recorded in the case of Vishwanath Singh (supra), the instant original application stands dismissed with the liberty to the applicant that in case the applicant is not satisfied with the calculation made by the Bank authorities and / or refixation for monthly installment, he may file an appropriate application before the respondent no 5, who is further directed to decide the same within two weeks from receiving it and it may be decided by way of a reasoned and speaking order and sympathetically too.
14. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Justice Om Prakash VII) Member (Judicial) RITU RAJ (Ritu Raj) SINGH 12 | P a g e