MD YUNUSH 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

Pr

C O R A M

ON’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH C

ush (Male), aged about 60 years 3 atrahiya, Ward No.17, P.O.-Laxmis Tech.1/Crew Lobby, Darbhanga, E

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. G.S. Prasa 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 N 01.08.2024 (Annexure-2), w

ATIVE TRIBUNAL , PATNA

Reserved on: -01.10.2026 ronounced on:- 15.10.2026 M CHANDRA, MEMBER [A] months, son of Bhola, resident of sagar, Darbhanga, Bihar, 846009, E.C. Railway, Samastipur.

………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 ad, ld. ASC E R Chandra, Member (A): y the applicant seeking the ce dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure-1) Rs.8,70,693/- has been deducted ant as excess/over payment. No.P/II/PC/Md. Yunus, dated whereby the pay of the applicant f , , . . . . e ) d d t Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench

2. The bri and del 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

has been amended and a counted as excess/over paym

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 19.02.1984 on Mechanical Department unde E.C. Railway, Samastipur. promoted on the post of Tec Station-Darbhanga, from superannuated/retired on 31.1 41600/-, Pay Level-5. 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.8, excess/over payment. 3 Thereafter, a Notice dated 2 issued to the applicant und Personnel Officer-I from the Manager (Personnel), Samas recovery/deduction of Rs.8,7 excess/over payment illegally a 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.870693/- (R Thousand and Six Hundred sum of Rs.8,70,693/-has been ment. /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 n compassionate ground in er Divisional Railway Manager, Later on the applicant was ch. (Power)-I/Mechanical/SPJ, where the applicant has 12.2024 in the Pay Scale of Rs. dum (Annexure-2) was issued nt Personnel Officer-I from the lway Manager (Personnel), ay of the applicant has been ,70,693/- has been counted as 21.08.2024 (Annexure-1) was der the signature of Assistant e Office of Divisional Railway stipur, whereby calculation of 70,693/- has been made as and arbitrarily. e applicant and issuance of the Memo (Annexure-1 and 60,000/- was also made at the h, which is evident from the Pay ) of the Months of September, November, 2024 and after Rupees Eight Lakh Seventy Ninety Three only) has been n t d d r n , s , s . d e , n s s t y f s 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

recovered from Gratuity of t from Final Settlement Sheet. 5 After receiving the aforesa applicant sent a Report dated before Senior Divisional Per Samastipur against the recovery/deduction of the afor excess/over payment, which w pay by Pay Amendment Memo 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 also important to menti Court decided in the case of S Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 2014 on 18.12.2014 held tha postulate all situations of ha mistakenly been made by an employer would be imperm situations. 9 It is further submitted that t Railway also issued Circul No.2016/F/E/11/613), (Lette recovery dated of the said wr the light of the aforesaid Circu (Annexure A-6) 10 It may be noted that Office issued by Government of India Grievances & Pension, Depart Estt. (Pay-I) Section which a the applicant which is evident aid Notice (Annexure-1), the d 17.10.2024 (Annexure A-4) rsonnel Officer, E.C. Railway, aforesaid Notice/Order of resaid sum of Rs.8,70,693/- as was issued after amendment of o (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. on here that the Hon'ble Apex State of Punjab & others Versus vide Civil Appeal No.11527 of at while it is not possible to ardship where payments have n employer, a recovery by the missible in law under certain the Railway Board/Ministry of ar/Letter R.B.E. No.72/2016 er 22.02.2016 against the rongful/excess payment and in ular recovery is not permissible. e Memorandum has also been a, Ministry of Personnel, Public tment of Personnel & Training also supports the case of the t e ) , f s f n e g e s r y x s f o e e n f e n . n c g e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 2.1

3. Per con written 3.1 3.2

applicant for not making recov of the applicant. (Annexure A 11 It is pertinent to mention authorities have illegally made date of appointment of the a date of retirement and amend they have deducted an amou excess/over amount, after thirt notice and memo. Hence, the p ntra, the Respondents have n statements in which it was st 1 During service period, the absent for a total of 3941 days without pay. He was under photocopy of relevant page Punishment is annexed herew R/1. 2 Prior to retirement of appli objected by Accounts Departm pay was verified by the Depart to not considering the LWP ( (Withholding of Increment) p wrongly fixed. As such, after Record and leave account the rectified vide office ord communicated to applicant. 09.12.2024 was prepared wh 8,36,353/- was excess paymen such, in terms of Rule 15 of R 1993, Rs 8,36,353/- has be employee. Hence, the recovery the applicant as per establishm was in the knowledge of app Hence, the case of applicant i dismissed.

very of over payment pay/salary A-7) n here that the respondent- e fixation of pay from the initial applicant i.e. 19.02.1984 to the dment in pay fixation, whereby nt of Rs.8,70,693/-showing as ty nine years vide his impugned present Original Application. contested the case by filing tated that: applicant was unauthorizedly s that was to be treated as leave punishment several times. A of Service record regarding with and marked as Annexure icant, the fixation of pay was ment. Subsequently fixation of tment and it was found that due (Leave Without Pay) and WIT unishment period, the pay was proper examination of Service e fixation of pay was correctly der dated 21.11.2024 and Subsequently, a case dated herein it was found that Rs. nt in favour of Md. Yunush. As Railway Services (Pension) Rule een recovered from DCRG of y order has been issued against ment rules. The above situation plicant prior to his retirement. is devoid of merit and may be y - l e y s d g y e A g e s f e T s e y d d . s e f t n . e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench

4. Ld. cou reiterat Applica

5. After h perusal conside conclus 5.1 5.2 5.3

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: 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 of Ind vs. Rafiq Masih (White Wash by the Railway Board. 3 On the other hand, the resp explanation for the alleged e them, the applicant remained period of 3941 days on dif periods of his absence were t Such periods were not qu increments. The respondents h periods were also affected by had not been properly take relevant time, the applicant co on dates on which he had 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 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 dia in State of Punjab & Others er) and the instructions issued 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. ualifying for earning regular have further stated that certain punishment. As these periods en into consideration at the ontinued to receive increments not completed the requisite e l d e g o l , n s o t r , s e s d c o l l . r n s e s e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 5.4 5.5 5.6

qualifying service. Conseque became higher than what was a 4 The respondents have further granted the benefits of MACP finalization of the retiral bene account and dates of increme noticed that the periods of Lea qualifying periods had not bee while fixing the applicant's pa undertook the exercise of re-f the excess amount paid to the a 5 From the materials placed be that the recovery was not init general or vague allegatio respondents have disclosed t namely, non-consideration of Pay and other non-qualifying increments. The respondent applicant was informed of the given an opportunity to sub matter was finalized. Thus, the the recovery was made wholly examination of his service reco of the principle of natural justi 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. It does not provi employees in all the cases respondents have specifically to wrong regulation of incr consideration of Leave Withou periods. The applicant has not ntly, the pay drawn by him actually admissible. r stated that the applicant was P scheme. Subsequently, before efits, the service records, leave ents were examined and it was ave Without Pay and other non- en properly taken into account ay. The respondents, therefore, fixation of pay and determined applicant. efore this Tribunal, it is evident tiated merely on the basis of a on of excess payment. The the reason for the re-fixation, the applicant's Leave Without g periods while regulating his ts have also stated that the e proposed re-fixation and was bmit his objection before the e applicant cannot contend that behind his back or without any ords. Thus, there is no violation ice. 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 ide blanket immunity to all the

s. In the present case, the attributed the excess payment rements on account of non- ut Pay and other non-qualifying t produced any material before m s e e s - t , d t a e , t s e s e t y n n d t d f d e e t - g e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 5.7

this Tribunal to establish th contrary to his service record non-qualifying were, in fact purpose of increment. Such a absence of approximately te glaring and any omission t employer and continue to rece misrepresentation on the par the Rafiq masih judgmen instant case. 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 dut ascertain and assess dues payable by a retirement.

(ii) The Railway o ascertained and as outstanding till the dat the railway servant, sh amount of the retire gratuity or terminal gr dues against the retirin regulated in accordan sub-rule (4).

(iii) For the purposes o "Railway or Governme

a. Dues pertaining accommodation in fee as well as dama

b. Dues other th Railway or Gove namely balance hat the revised calculation is d or that the periods treated as t, qualifying periods for the a long period of unauthorized en years in service should be o point out this fact to the eive the enhanced payment is a rt of employee thereby making nt (Supra) inapplicable in 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 ty of the Head of Office to Government or Railway railway servant due for r Government dues as ssessed, which remain te of retirement or death of hall be adjusted against the ement gratuity or death ratuity and recovery of the ng railway servant shall be nce with the provisions of of this rule, the expression ent dues" includes: to Railway or Government ncluding arrears of license ages, if any; han those pertaining to ernment accommodation, of house-building or s s e d e e a g e t t , d

G o y r s n f e h e e f n t e o , r Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 5.8 5.9 5.1 5.1

conveyance or overpayment of p salary or other du Life Insurance pr short collection in stores)caused to Railway as a result the part of the rai in service.”

8 The applicant has not been ab provision has no application t from his retiral dues is express statutory provision. Therefore have sufficient statutory power 9 If such recovery is condoned effectively amount to adjud entitlement to payment for applicant was treated as being under punishment as reflec thereby indirectly legitimising decision on that issue, despit challenge to the same. Such an to setting aside a punishmen having sought any relief agains 10 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. 11 I also find that the erroneou respondents upon scrutiny of settlement of his retiral benefit already been initiated during adjustment from DCRG was t with the applicable pension ru any other advance, pay and allowances, leave ues such as Post Office or remium, losses (including freight charges shortage in the Government or the t, if negligence or fraud on ilway servant while he was ble to demonstrate that the said to his case or that the recovery sly prohibited by any applicable , it is held that the respondents r to effect such recovery. d in the instant case, it would dicating upon the applicant’s a period during which the g on unauthorised absence and cted from the service record, or setting aside the employer’s te the absence of any specific n exercise would be tantamount nt order without the applicant st it. 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 us fixation was detected by the his service records before final ts and the recovery process had g his service period. The final thereafter made in accordance ules. Therefore, the present case

, e r g n e n s d y e s d s e d , s c t t e . t s y h e e l d l e e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 5.1 5.1 5.1

p cannot be treated as a case o demand raised against the app any verification of his entitlem 12 It is also pertinent to note th before this Tribunal an demonstrating that the a 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 This has not been done by the 13 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 balance having been made in accordan statutory authority, does not Tribunal. 14 Consequently, the reliefs quashing of the notice d amendment/re-fixation mem refund of the amount of Rs.8 The Original Application is d shall be no order as to cost.

(Ku k/- of an entirely fresh or arbitrary plicant after retirement without ment. hat the applicant has not placed ny independent calculation amount of Rs.8,70,693/- 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. applicant. 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. amount from the retiral dues, nce with the respondents' stated t warrant interference by this sought by the applicant for dated 21.08.2024, the pay o dated 01.08.2024, and for 8,70,693/- cannot be granted. dismissed, accordingly. There umar Rajesh Chandra)

Member (A)

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