RAJARAM RAM vs EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY on 15 October 2026

1. The Uni District-

2. The D At+P.O.+

3. The Div At+P.O.+

4. The Sen At+P.O.+

5. The A At+P.O.+

For Appl For Resp

1. The in followin

CENTRAL ADMINISTRA PATNA BENCH, O.A. No. 050/00

Pro

C O R A M

ON’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH C

Ram, aged about 61 years (Male), s Bhagwan Das, J.P. Chowk, Ward a, District-Darbhanga. Retired way, Samastipur.

Versu

ion of India, through the General -Vaishali (Bihar), PIN-844101. Divisional Railway Manager, +District-Samastipur, Pin-848101 visional Railway Manger (Person +District-Samastipur, Pin-848101 nior Divisional Personnel Offic +District-Samastipur, Pin-848101 Assistant Personnel Officer, +District-Samastipur, Pin-848101

licant:- Mr. Sadan Kum pondents:- Mr. A.K. Mant O R D Per: Mr. Kumar Rajesh C nstant OA has been filed by ng relief:-

i. To set aside/quash the Notic whereby and whereunder R from Gratuity of the applica

ii. To quash the Memo No. P/II (Annexure-2), whereby the

ATIVE TRIBUNAL , PATNA

Reserved on:- 01.10.2026 onounced on:- 15.10.2026 M CHANDRA, MEMBER [A] son of Nageshwar Ram, resident of d No.20, P.O.-Lalbag, P.S.-Town Helper/Crew Lobbi, Darbhanga,

………Applicant us l Manager, E.C. Railway, Hajipur, E.C. Railway, Samastipur. . nnel), E.C. Railway, Samastipur. . cer, E.C. Railway, Samastipur. . E.C. Railway, Samastipur. .

……..Respondents mar Singh, ld. Advocate tu, ld. ASC E R Chandra, Member (A): y the applicant seeking the ce dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure-1) Rs.13,55,245/- has been deducted ant as excess/over payment. I/PC/RajaRam, dated 28.06.2024 e pay of the applicant has been f n , , . . . . e ) d n Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench

2. The bri and del 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

amended and a sum of Rs excess/over payment.

iii. To refund all the recovered/ in the aforesaid facts and cir

iv. Any other relief/reliefs for entitled.

ief facts of the case, as per th lineated as follows: 1 The applicant was initially ap Khalasi on 08.08.1985 in M Divisional Railway Manager, E on the applicant was promote I/Mechanical/SPJ, Station-D applicant has superannuated/r Scale of Rs.41600/-, Pay Level 2 On 01.08.2024, a Memorand under the signature of Assista Office of Divisional Rail Samastipur, whereby the pa amended and a sum of Rs.13,5 excess/over payment. 3 Thereafter, a Notice dated 2 issued to the applicant und Personnel Officer-I with regard Divisional Railway Manage whereby recovery/deduction made from the Gratuity of payment illegally and arbitrari 4 Prior to the retirement of the aforesaid Notice and

2) recovery/deduction of Rs.6 rate of Rs.20,000/- per month Slips (Annexures-3 series) 2024, October, 2024 and retirement Rs. 13,55,245/- ( Five Thousand and Two Hund s.13,55,245/-has been counted as /deducted amount of the applicant rcumstances of the case. r which the applicant is found he instant O.A., are discussed ppointed on the post of Fitter Mechanical Department under E.C. Railway, Samastipur. Later ed to the post of Tech. (Power)- Darbhanga, from where the retired on 31.12.2024 in the Pay -5. dum (Annexure-2) was issued nt Personnel Officer-I from the lway Manager (Personnel), ay of the applicant has been 55,245/- has been calculated as 21.08.2024 (Annexure-1) was der the signature of Assistant d to the order from the Office of er (Personnel), Samastipur, of Rs.13,55,245/- has been the applicant as excess/over ily. e applicant and issuance of the Memo (Annexure-1 and 0,000/- was also made at the h, which is evident from the Pay ) of the Months of September, November, 2024 and after Rupees Thirteen Lakhs, Fifty dred, Forty Five only) has been s t d d r r r - e y d e , n s s t f , n r e d e y , r y n Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.1 2.1

recovered from Gratuity of t from Final Settlement Sheet. 5 After receiving the aforesa applicant sent a Repres (Annexure-4) before Senior E.C. Railway, Samastipur agai of recovery/deduction of the a as excess/over payment, whic of pay by Pay Amendment Mem 6 It is important to mention her his salary on the basis of fix respondent concerned and ap the benefit of financial up-grad and if any excess payment or o such fixation, the applicant c such over payment/excess pay 7 It is further submitted and st paid the income tax in the upp 8 It is important to mention he recovered from the Gratuity of excess payment/over paymen financial hardship and ultimat and education of the children w 9 It is further submitted and s played by the applicant for giv gradation under the MACP Sch 10 It is important to mention he decided in the case of State of Masih (White Washer) vide Ci 18.12.2014 held that while it situations of hardship where p made by an employer, a recov impermissible in law under c applicant’s case gets covered.(A 11 It is further submitted that Railway also issued Circul the applicant which is evident aid Notice (Annexure-1), the entation dated 24.09.2024 r Divisional Personnel Officer, inst the aforesaid Notice/Order aforesaid sum of Rs.13,55,245/- ch was issued after amendment mo (Annexure-2). re that the applicant has drawn xation of pay as made by the pplicant had no role in getting dation under the MACP Scheme over payment has been made as cannot be held responsible for yment. tated that the applicant already er slab of the Income. ere that if Rs.13,55,245/-will be f the applicant as an account of nt then the applicant will face tely, maintenance of the family will be adversely affected. stated that no fraud has been ving the benefit of financial up- heme. ere that the Hon'ble Apex Court f Punjab & others Versus Rafiq ivil Appeal No.11527 of 2014 on is not possible to postulate all payments have mistakenly been very by the employer would be certain conditions in which the Annexure A-5) the Railway Board/Ministry of ar/Letter R.B.E. No.72/2016

t e

, r - t n e g e s r y e f e y n - t q n l n e e f

Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 2.1

3. Per con Short w which i 3.1 3.2 3.3

(Letter No.2016/F/E/11/613), A-6) against the recovery payment and in the light of th not permissible. 12 It may be noted that Office issued by Government of India Grievances & Pension Depart Estt. (Pay-I) Section which a applicant for not recovery of o applicant (Annexure A-7). Application. ntra, the Respondents have written statement thereafter, d it was stated that: 1 The applicant was absent from days. However, taking lenient did not take harsh disciplinary allowed to join duty. 2 The applicant was unauthori his duty. The unauthorized p which is non-qualifying s incremental benefits. Due to above several days/months, changed one month to othe complete one year qualifying month wherein increment wa aforesaid situation he gates benefits during service period not admissible to him. 3 It is stated that the benefit granted to him vide Office L 01.09.2008 and the financial b and Rs. 2000/- were granted benefit of 3rd MACP was gra dated 31.12.2015 w.e.f. 08.08.2

dated 22.02.2016 (Annexure of the said wrongful/excess he aforesaid Circular recovery is e Memorandum has also been a, Ministry of Personnel, Public tment of Personnel & Training also supports the case of the over payment pay/salary of the Hence, the present Original contested the case by filing detailed written statements in m duty for a total period of 2573 t view, Railway Administration y action against him and he was ized absent several times from period was leave without pay service for the purpose of absent period of applicant in , his incremental date was rs, because applicant did not g service in time i.e. on that as given to him earlier. In the s several wrong incremental and got more salary which was t of 1st and 2nd MACP were Letter dated 05.02.2010 w.e.f. benefit in Grade Pay Rs. 1900/- d respectively. Thereafter, the anted to him vide Office Letter 2015 in Grade Pay Rs. 2400/-.

e s s n c g e e l g n n s m y f n s t t e l s e . - e r Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 3.4 3.5 3.6

4. Ld. cou reiterat Applica

5. After h perusal conside conclus

4 It is further stated that prio fixation of pay was verified b found that due to not conside Pay) and WIT (Withholding period, the pay was wrongly examination of Service Recor increment the fixation of Thereafter, a show cause notic 1 of Original Application) al 28.06.2024 was sent to the payment with request to give h 5 It is further stated that after period of applicant, pay was fi dated 13.11.2024 and commun found that during service per payment made in favour of ap The deduction of overpaymen period of employee. In terms (Pension) Rules 1993, Rs. 1 from DCRG of employee. So, t statutory provision for the sam the employee. 6 Moreover, any excess paym Income tax department are be of filing return of Income Tax. unsel for applicant has filed ted the same facts as m ation. hearing the learned counsel l of the material available b ered the matter in its entire sions:

or to retirement of applicant, by the Department and it was ering the LWP (Leave Without g of Increment) punishment y fixed. As such, after proper rd, leave account and date of pay was correctly rectified. ce dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure- long with draft fixation dated applicant regarding his over his objection till 30.08.2024. considering leave without pay ixed properly vide Office Order nicated to the applicant. It was riod Rs.13,55,245/- was excess pplicant, namely, Rajaram Ram. nt was initiated during service of Rule 15 of Railway Services 13,55,245/-has been recovered there is no infirmity as there is me. There has been due notice to ments made in favour of the eing obtained/recovered by way d the rejoinder in which he mentioned in the Original ls for both the parties and before this Tribunal, I have ety and arrived at following

, s t t r f . - d r y r s s . e s d s o e y e l d e g Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

1 The dispute in the presen correction of the applicant's p recovery of the amount which had been paid to him in excess 2 The applicant has contended of his pay and that the salar were paid to him by the Railw time on the basis of the pay fi authority. It has also been con any fraud nor misrepresentat recovery of a substantial am impermissible, particularly in Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sta Masih (White Washer) and t Railway Board. 3 On the other hand, the resp explanation for the alleged e them, the applicant remained period of 2573 days on dif periods of his absence were t Such periods were not to be c earning regular increments. T stated that certain periods wer As these periods had not consideration at the relevant t receive increments on dates o the requisite qualifying service by him became higher than wh 4 The respondents have further granted the benefits of 1st an 01.09.2008 and the benefit o 08.08.2015. Subsequently, be benefits, the service records increments were examined periods of Leave Without P periods had not been properly t O.A. essentially relates to pay fixation and consequential h, according to the respondents, s during his service. that he had no role in fixation ry and other financial benefits way Administration from time to ixation made by the competent ntended that there was neither ion on his part and, therefore, mount from his retiral dues is n view of the judgment of the ate of Punjab & Others vs. Rafiq the instructions issued by the pondents have given a specific excess payment. According to d absent from duty for a total fferent occasions and several treated as Leave Without Pay. ounted as qualifying period for The respondents have further re also affected by punishment. t been properly taken into ime, the applicant continued to on which he had not completed

e. Consequently, the pay drawn hat was actually admissible. r stated that the applicant was nd 2nd MACP with effect from of 3rd MACP with effect from efore finalization of the retiral , leave account and dates of and it was noticed that the Pay and other non-qualifying y taken into account while fixing o l , n s o t r , s e q e c o l l . r r . o o d n s m m l f e g g Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 5.5 5.6

the applicant's pay. The resp the exercise of re-fixation of p amount paid to the applicant. 5 From the materials placed bef the recovery was not initiated m or vague allegation of excess p disclosed the reason for th consideration of the applicant' non-qualifying periods while respondents have also stated t of the proposed re-fixation an submit his objection before th the applicant cannot contend wholly behind his back or w service records. Hence, the principle of natural justice 6 The reliance placed by the ap Rafiq Masih has also been c down therein undoubtedly recovery in certain circumstan be inequitable or impermissibl those principles has to be exam of each case. In the presen specifically attributed the exce of increments on account o Without Pay and other non-qu has not produced any mate establish that the revised calcu record or that the periods trea fact, qualifying periods for th fully aware of the long period that runs into years. His omis gap will amount to misrepre Hon’ble Supreme Court of Ind does not grant blanket immu fraud or misrepresentation of pondents, therefore, undertook pay and determined the excess fore this court, it is evident that merely on the basis of a general payment. The respondents have he re-fixation, namely, non- 's Leave Without Pay and other regulating his increments. The that the applicant was informed nd was given an opportunity to he matter was finalized. Thus, d that the recovery was made without any examination of his ere is no violation of the e. pplicant upon the judgment in considered. The principles laid protect employees against nces where the recovery would le. However, the applicability of mined in the factual background nt case, the respondents have ss payment to wrong regulation of non-consideration of Leave ualifying periods. The applicant erial before this Tribunal to ulation is contrary to his service ated as non-qualifying were, in he purpose of increment. He is d of his unauthorized absence ssion to point out such glaring sentation. The decision of the dia in the case of Rafiq Masih unity from the recovery if the the employee is evident. In the k s t l e - r e d o , e s e n d t d f d e n e t o e n s e g e h e e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 5.7

instant case, misrepresentatio unauthorized absence leadi erroneously counted for getti applicant is glaring. 7 On consideration of the resp the respondents have connect with the applicant's service par Leave Without Pay and dates upon Rule 15 of the Railway for adjustment of the recove which is as under: “(i) It shall be the d ascertain and asses dues payable by a retirement.

(ii) The Railway ascertained and outstanding till th death of the railway against the amount or death gratuity recovery of the d railway servant accordance with th (4).

(iii) For the pur expression "Railwa includes:

a. Dues pertaining accommodation in fee, if any;

b. Dues other th Railway or Gove namely balance conveyance or overpayment of p salary or other dues Insurance premium collection in freig stores) caused to Railway as a result on by omission to mention long ing to this period getting ing more than the due to the pondents' pleadings, I find that ted the alleged excess payment rticulars, including his absence, of increment, and have relied Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 rable amount from his DCRG duty of the Head of Office to ss Government or Railway a railway servant due for or Government dues as assessed, which remain he date of retirement or y servant, shall be adjusted t of the retirement gratuity or terminal gratuity and dues against the retiring shall be regulated in he provisions of sub-rule rposes of this rule, the ay or Government dues" to Railway or Government cluding arrears of license han those pertaining to ernment accommodation, of house-building or any other advance, ay and allowances, leave s such as Post Office or Life m, losses (including short ght charges shortage in the Government or the t, if negligence or fraud on g g e t t , d

G o y r s n r d y d g n e e " t e o , r , e e t n e n Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 5.8 5.9 5.1 5.1 5.1

the part of the railw service.”

8 Thus, there is a statutory pr negligence on the part of railw record. 9 The applicant has not been ab provision has no application t from his retiral dues is express statutory provision. 10 If such recovery is condone effectively amount to adjud entitlement to payment for applicant was treated as being withholding of increment, the setting aside the employer’s d the absence of any specific ch exercise would be tantamount order without the applicant h it. 11 The contention that the appl tax on the amount received by Payment of income tax on the confer a right to retain an amo found to have been paid in admissible. The issue of exces by the applicant in accordan Income Tax law. 12 I also find that the responde the amount merely because service. Rather, according to t fixation was detected upon s before final settlement of his r process had already been initi The final adjustment from D accordance with the applicabl way servant while he was in rovision for such recovery and way servant is evident from the ble to demonstrate that the said to his case or that the recovery sly prohibited by any applicable ed in the instant case, it would dicating upon the applicant’s a period during which the g on unauthorised absence and ereby indirectly legitimising or decision on that issue, despite hallenge to the same. Such an t to setting aside a punishment aving sought any relief against licant had already paid income y him also does not assist him. salary actually received cannot ount which, after verification, is excess of the amount legally ss tax, if any, can be dealt with nce with the provisions of the ents have not sought to recover e the applicant retired from the respondents, the erroneous scrutiny of his service records retiral benefits and the recovery iated during his service period. DCRG was thereafter made in le pension rules. Therefore, the n d e d y e d s e d r e n t t e . t s y h e r m s s y . n e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 5.1 5.1 5.1

p present case cannot be treated arbitrary demand raised retirement without any verifica 13 It is also pertinent to note th before this Tribunal an demonstrating that the am mathematically or factually in the amount is excessive or responsible for the original invalidate the revised fixation calculation, he was required to the calculation or demonstrat increments and pay which we No such convincing material h 14 Having regard to the totality I am of the considered view t establish any illegality, arbit impugned action of the respo justified in correcting the erro into account the Leave Withou periods and consequentially de The recovery of the amount been made in accordance w statutory authority, does not Tribunal. 15 Consequently, the reliefs quashing of the notice d amendment/re-fixation memo refund of the amount of Rs.1 The Original Application is d shall be no order as to cost.

(

k/- d as a case of an entirely fresh or against the applicant after ation of his entitlement. hat the applicant has not placed ny independent calculation mount of Rs.13,55,245/- is ncorrect. Merely, alleging that that the applicant was not fixation is not sufficient to

n. If the applicant disputes the o point out the specific error in te from his service record the ere actually admissible to him. has been placed before us. of the facts and circumstances, that the applicant has failed to trariness or perversity in the ondents. The respondents were oneous pay fixation after taking ut Pay and other non-qualifying etermining the excess payment. from the retiral dues, having with the respondents' stated t warrant interference by this sought by the applicant for dated 21.08.2024, the pay o dated 28.06.2024, and for 13,55,245/- cannot be granted. dismissed, accordingly. There (Kumar Rajesh Chandra)

Member (A)

r r d n s t t o e n e . , o e e g g . g d s r y r . e ) Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI