SRI DHARANI MEDHI vs N.F.RAILWAY on 29 September 2026

ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This application has been preferred to seek the following relief: “8.1. To quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 26.05.2025 [Annexure- A/1] issued by the SSE/P.Way./IC/CGON to the DRM (P)/RNY with all consequential benefits.

8.2. To quash and set aside the impugned office order dated 13.03.2024 [Annexure- A/2] issued by the APO/-I/RNY with all consequential benefits, 8.3 To quash and set aside the impugned seniority list as on 01.01.2024 [Annexure- A/3] to the extent of placement of applicant as Track Maintainer- IV with all consequential benefits. 8.4 To direct the respondent to restore the rank ofthe applicant to Track Maintainer-II with consequential seniority position even upon cancellation of his own request transfer with all other consequential benefits. 8.5 To direct the respondents to restore the pay of the applicant to Rs. 27,900/- as on 30.10.2018 and make all consequential fixation of his pay till date without reducing his pay with all consequential benefits.

8.6. Cost of the application.

8.7. Any other relief/ relief"s to which the applicant is entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the case and as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal upon consideration of the matter.”

2. The applicant was initially appointed as Trackman (re-designated as Track Maintainer- IV) vide order at 17.01.2006 on pay of Rs.2,610/- in the pay scale of Rs.2,610- 3,540/-, Thereafter, he was promoted as Track Maintainer Grade-III in pay of Rs.5,200- 20,200 + Rs.1900/- (GP). He was then promoted as Track Maintainer- II vide office order dated 29.06.2017. The existing pay as on 01.07.2016 was shown as Rs.26,000/- and his pay on promotion was shown as Rs.27,100/- in Level-4.

The railway authorities issued an order dated 27.10.2018 by which the applicant was transferred as Track Maintainer-II from SSE/P.Way/GLPT section to SSE/P.Way/CGON section as per his own request in the existing pay scale. This order was absolutely clear that the applicant was transferred on his existing pay and scale thus protecting his pay and rank with only consequential effect of bottom seniority in the rank of Track Maintainer- Il. However, after passing of about 6 (six) years, the respondents issued the office order at 13.03.2024 by which the applicant was reverted to the post of Track Maintainer-

IV followed by reduction of his pay at Level- I without any notice. But, this decision remained unimplemented till May, 2025. On 26.05.2025, the respondents issued the office order by which his pay was re-fixed as Track Maintainer- IV with further direction of recovery of excess payment.

3. Sri S. Das, learned counsel for the applicant submits that no point of time the applicant had accepted bottom seniority as Track Maintainer-IV. At the time of transfer, the applicant was Track Maintainer- II and his pay was Rs. 27,400/- at Level- 4. The order nowhere revealed that he will be reverted to Track Maintainer- IV at Level-1. Had there been so, the applicant would not have opted for his own request transfer. Therefore, the action on the part of the respondents to revert the applicant as Track Maintainer- IV in level- 1 in the guise of own request transfer is in clear violation of the office order dated 27.10.2018. Now, the respondent authorities have directed for recovery of @ Rs.20,000/- from the salary of the applicant from the month of May, 2025. The decision of the respondents to make recovery from the salary of the applicant being a Grade- IV employee without any fault on his part is in clear violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) AIR 2015 SC 696 as well as the guidelines issue by the DoPT in the subject as adopted by the Railway Board.

4. Respondents have stated that Shri Dharani Medhi was appointed in the recruitment grade of Trackman (re- designated as Track Maintainer-IV) on 19.01.2006 on pay Rs. 2670/- in the pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540. He had applied for own request intra division transfer (from one unit to a different unit of seniority) on 04.10.2017 from SSE/PW/GLPT to SSE/PW/CGON. Accordingly, he was transferred on his own request in his existing pay as per existing rule with immediate effect vide on dt. 27.10.2018.

4.1. That, as per Railway Board's letter no. E(NG)I/2019/TR/10 dt. 17.08.2023 point no. 7 Transfer on the basis of one way own request para 7.3 clearly states that where the requests involve transfer to a different unit of seniority/ another Division on the same Railway/ another

Railway, transfer should be ordered after clearance from all sources and acceptance by the new unit. Request transfers are allowed only in initial recruitment grades or in such intermediate grades in which there is an element of direct recruitment on bottom seniority.

4.2. That, the pay of Shri Dharani Medhi on his own request intra division transfer (from one unit to a different unit of seniority) i.e. from SSE/PW/GLPT to SSE/PW/CGON was fixed as per Railway Board's letter no. 2017/F(E)II/3/3/1 dt. 06.04.2017 in terms of DoP&T's O.M No. 12/1/2016- Estt (Pay- I) dt. 31.03.2017 (Annexure-R/4) which states that: “In case of transfer to a lower Level of post in the Pay Matrix under FR 15(a) on his/her own request w.e.f. 1.1.2016, the pay of the Government Servant holding a post on regular basis will be fixed in the revised pay structure at the stage equal to the pay drawn by him/her in the higher Level of post held regularly. If no such stage is available, the pay will be fixed at the stage next below in the lower Level with respect to the pay drawn by him/her in the higher Level of post held regularly and the difference in the pay may be granted as personal pay to be absorbed in future Increment(s). If maximum of the vertical range of pay progression at the lower Level in which he/she is appointed, happens to be less than the pay drawn by him/her in the higher Level, his/her pay may be restricted to that maximum under FR 22(1)(a)(3)."

4.3. The action of the respondents is as per the existing rule and guideline issued by the DoPT.

4.4. Moreover, it is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality even by extending the wrong decisions. Even if a wrong is committed, it cannot be perpetuated and same cannot accrued right which is otherwise not available. If an illegality and irregularity have been committed in favour of an individual or a wrong order has been passed, jurisdiction of the court cannot be invoked for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality. A wrong order/decision in favour of any individual does not entitle him any relief on the basis of the wrong order/decision.

4.5. The case of Rafiq Masih is not applicable to the present case and circumstances. The Rafiq Masih case is based on the concept of equity and hardship. The amount recoverable is Rs. 20,000/- in an instalment basis from the salary.

5. We have heard the parties and perused the records and pleadings.

6. It is the grievance of the applicant that he was appointed as Track Maintainer IV and thereafter promoted as Track Maintainer III and at last promoted as Track Maintainer II, but he was reverted back to the post of Track Maintainer IV. Vide order dated 27.10.2018 he was transferred as Track Maintainer-II from SSE/P.Way/GLPT section to SSE/P.Way/CGON section as per his own request in the existing pay scale. But the respondents after a long period of 6 (six) years, decided to issue order on 13.03.2024 reverting him to the post of Track Maintainer- IV followed by reduction of his pay at Level- I without any notice and that too implemented only in May, 2025 and issuing order for recovery and refixing his pay vide order dated 26.05.2025. It is clear from the order dated 27.10.2018 that he is being transferred on his own request in existing pay and scale as per existing rule. Now issuing order for overpayment after reverting him back without giving him any notice that too after a long period of almost 06 years is arbitrary.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) AIR 2015 SC 696, while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer,

in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law: “(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the 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 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."

8. Similar view was also taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala & Others 2022 Live Law (SC) 438 by observing that relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered, particularly, when an employee had no role for the excess payment made to him by the employer.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant at the time of hearing brought an office order dated 17.03.2026 whereby it can be seen that the applicant had taken voluntary retirement and retired on 30.04.2026.

10. It is not the fault of the applicant nor did he misrepresented the fact. He was promoted by the respondents and he was paid the salary for the higher posts for which he was performing his duties as TM-II from the date he was promoted. He was transferred in 2018 as TM-II and after a long period of time issuing an order of recovery in 2025 is impermissible. He is also retired now and is a Grp D employee and in view of the settled position of law supra, when an employee had no role for the over payment made to him by the employer, recovery cannot be made at this stage.

11. The impugned communication dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure A/1) is quashed and set aside, respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount, if any already made, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

12. The O.A is disposed of with no order as to costs. Pending M.A, if any, also stands disposed of.

(MALLIKA ARYA) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

SS