HARCHARAN KAHAR vs WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY on 15 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR Order Sheet Item no.: 56 O.A./850/2026 (JABALPUR) [ RECOVERY ] [ SENIOR CITIZEN ] Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 1 Order Dated: 15/10/2026 HARCHARAN KAHAR Vs WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY

For Applicant(s) Advocate : SHRI GAUTAM SINGH KAURAV

For Respondent(s) Advocate : SHRI S P SINGH FOR RESPONDENTS NOS. 1 & 2, NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NOS. 3 & 4 Order of The Tribunal Hon’ble Shri Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member (Judicial) connected through VC. Today, the matter was listed for hearing on interim relief. The applicant has sought for the following interim relief in this O.A. “9. If deemed necessary, as an interim measure, it is prayed that this Hon'ble tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondentsthat during the pendency of the instant O.A. the respondent No.4, to remove the lien/hold from the amount of Rs.3,40,000/- bearing A/c No.33065066961. and to stay the effect and operation of recovery notice dated 21/01/2026.”

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed to the post of Gatekeeper on 21.01.1984 and subsequently retired voluntarily on 31.01.2014 after rendering the qualifying service of 24 years, 4 months and 2 days. The applicant submits that, after a lapse of more than ten years from his retirement, the respondents have initiated recovery of the alleged excess pension paid to him. It has been further submitted that the applicant, being a retired Group 'D' employee aged about 64 years, is entitled to protection against such recovery in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others, (2015) 4 SCC

334. The applicant has also challenged the action of the respondents in withholding an amount of Rs. 3,40,000/- already deposited in his account. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 & 2 has opposed the interim relief, contending that the recovery has been initiated on account of excess pension paid to him during the period 01.01.2016 to 30.11.2025. It has been submited by the counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 that the main respondents in the O.A. are respondents Nos. 3 & 4 since the impugned order has been issued by SBI, CPPC, Bhopal. Heard the rival submissions of the counsel for both the parties on the prayer for interim relief.

We find that the applicant has raised a prima facie case for consideration. The applicant's contention that the recovery pertains to alleged excess pension payments made over a prolonged period, without any misrepresentation or fraud on his part, requires consideration in light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, held that recovery from retired employees and employees belonging to Class III and Class IV services would be impermissible in the circumstances specified therein. In view of the above, and considering the nature of the alleged recovery and the applicant's status as a retired Group 'D' employee, we are of the considered view that the matter warrants interim protection pending consideration by this Tribunal. Accordingly, as an ad-interim measure, the impugned order of recovery dated 20.01.2026 (Annexure A-1) is stayed in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra) till the next date of hearing. The respondents are directed to file their detailed reply, before the next date. List the case on 27.01.2027. Issue certified copy.

Smt Mallika Arya Member (A) RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA Member (J) Rajul Namdeo ( steno 'c' )