Kailash Chand vs NORTHERN RAILWAY on 30 October 2026

1. U M O

2. T R

3. T R P (By A

Central Administrativ Principal Bench, N O.A. No. 2405/ This the 30th day of O ’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Membe ash Chand, age about 60+ years, Group hobha Ram, retired Travelling Ticket hern Railway, Amroha Station, Morad sion, Moradabad, UP; and Presently R

o. D-5/10-11, Near Allahabad Bank, N tment, Gadaipur, South Delhi, Delhi-1

Advocate: Mr. Gaya Prasad) Versus Union of India, through The Manager, Northern Railway, Hea Office, Baroda House, New Delhi-1 The Divisional Railway Manager, Railway, DRM Office, Moradabad 244102. The Divisional Personnel Officer, Railway, D.R.M Office, Morada Pin-244102. Advocate: Mr. U Srivastava)

ve Tribunal New Delhi /2026 ctober, 2026 er (J) p 'C', S/o Inspector, dabad Residing at Nirvana 110030. ...Applicant e General ad Quarter 110001. , Northern (UP), Pin- , Northern abad (UP), ...Respondents.

SUR AJ BISH T SUR AJ BISH T

Item No.69 (Court-4)

In of the prayed f “

8. (A N il ju pa Ap of re il ju vi co re an ti be or

8. fo un av m

8. T ci ag

2. H applican Ticket I

ORDER (ORAL Hon’ble Mr. Manish Ga n the present Original Applicatio Administrative Tribunals Act, for the following reliefs: “8.1 to allow the present Original App .2 to quash and set aside the impug Annexure A-1) passed by the Di Northern Railway, Moradabad (Resp llegal recovery of an amount to Rs. ustified and recovered from the m ayable to the Applicant during the pe pril, 2026, @ Rs.25,000 per month, f Rs.1,28,283/- from the Gratuity paya etirement, and to declare the said a llegal, arbitrary, mala fide, violative ustice, contrary to the applicable iolation of the law laid down by the onsequently, direct the Responden ecovered amount of Rs. 3,28,283/- al nnum from the date the recovery com ill the date of actual payment/ realiza enefits and directing the Responden riginal pay fixation with effect from 2 .3 to impose exemplary costs of Rs. 5 or acting in violation of their nnecessarily harassing the Applicant, voidable litigation in the present cas mental agony, financial hardship, and .4 to grant any other or further Tribunal may deem fit, just, and ircumstances of the present case, in gainst the Respondents.” Highlighting the facts of the ca nt submits that the applicant w Inspector at Amroha Railway S

L) arg, Member (J):- on, filed under Section 19 1985, the applicant has plication; gned order dated 07.03.2025, ivisional Personnel Officer, pondent No. 3), whereby the 3,28,283/- was sought to be monthly salary and Gratuity eriod from September, 2025 to as well as remaining amount able to the Applicant after his action of the Respondents as e of the principles of natural Govt. Rules, and in clear Hon'ble Supreme Court, and nts to refund the illegally long with interest @ 18% per menced, i.e., September 2025, ation, by revising Pensionary nts to restore the Applicant's 2.10.2007; 51,000/- upon the Respondents own Rules and Circulars, , compelling him to engage in se, and causing him immense undue harassment; and relief(s) which this Hon'ble d proper in the facts and favour of the Applicant and ase, learned counsel for the was working as a Travelling Station under the Moradabad

SUR AJ BISH T SUR AJ BISH T

Item No.69 (Court-4)

Division 30.04.20 initially scale o compass Shahjah teaching further p the resp redeploy lower pa said pay the im respond recover Eight T allegatio Pursuan applican April, 2 remainin payable n of Northern Railway and sup 026, upon attaining the age of appointed as an Assistant Teac f Rs. 1200-2040 (RPS), in t sionate grounds and was hanpur. Subsequently, owing g staff in the aforesaid school, th posting orders from 01.07.2001 pondents against a supernumera yed, under protest, to the lower p ay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 (RPS) y scale, with effect from 05.05.2 mpugned order dated 07.03.2 ents, at the fag end of the applic an amount of Rs. 3,28,283/- (R Thousand Two Hundred and on of erroneous pay fixation w nt thereto, a sum of Rs. 2,00,00 nt's monthly salary during the pe 2026, at the rate of Rs. 25,0 ng amount of Rs. 1,28,283/- wa to him upon his retirement by perannuated from service on 60 years. The applicant was her on 11.11.1994, in the pay the Railway Department on posted at ATP School, to the surplus strength of e applicant remained awaiting to 14.09.2004 in the office of ary post. Thereafter, he was post of Ticket Collector in the ), with bottom seniority in the 2004. It is submitted that, vide 2025 (Annexure A-1), the cant's service career, sought to Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty- Eighty-Three only) on the with effect from 22.10.2007. 00/- was recovered from the eriod from September, 2025 to 000/- per month, while the as recovered from the gratuity y retrospectively reducing and

SUR AJ BISH T SUR AJ BISH T

Item No.69 (Court-4)

re-fixing aforesai 31.12.20 and prop salary a also req recovere to his re

3. Le Pension 30.04.20 Division Moradab in reop 22.10.20 years w contrary counsel the com years w misrepre respond g his pay with effect from 22 d action, the applicant subm 025 to Respondent No. 2, specif priety of the proposed and ongoi s well as his retiral dues. Throu quested the respondents to refun ed from him. However, no effec epresentation, nor was any relief earned counsel for the applic Payment Order (PPO) bearing 026 was issued in favour of th nal Finance Manager, Northe bad. The applicant contends that pening his pay fixation with 007, after permitting the same to without any objection, is whol y to the settled principles of se for the applicant submits that h mpetent authority and the same co without any objection, audit esentation or fraud on his part ents could not have reopened

2.10.2007. Aggrieved by the mitted a representation dated fically challenging the legality ing recovery from his monthly ugh the said representation, he nd the entire amount already ctive consideration was given granted to him. cant further submits that a g No. 20267030700070 dated he applicant by the Assistant ern Railway, DRM Office, t the action of the respondents h retrospective effect from o remain operative for several lly arbitrary, unjustified and ervice jurisprudence. Learned is pay had been duly fixed by ontinued to operate for several objection or allegation of

t. In such circumstances, the and revised his pay fixation

SUR AJ BISH T SUR AJ BISH T

Item No.69 (Court-4)

retrospe was on t excess misrepre part of and con the com any alle administ recovery career o

4. Le retrospe from 22 gratuity, The res represen despite such rec has been the settl by the H

ectively after an inordinate lapse the verge of retirement. It is furth payment, if any, was ne esentation nor attributable to any the applicant. The applicant ha nsequential financial benefits as mpetent authorities of the Railwa eged error in the fixation of p trative level, could not legitim y from the applicant, particularly r from his retiral benefits. earned counsel further submits ectively reducing and re-fixing t 2.10.2007, followed by recovery , is ex facie arbitrary, unreasona spondents have also failed ntation and have continued to wi the applicant having specifical covery. It is vehemently argued n effected in gross violation of t led principles of service jurispru Hon'ble Supreme Court. The act

of time, particularly when he her contended that the alleged either occasioned by any y fraud or concealment on the ad merely received the salary determined and disbursed by ay Administration. Therefore, pay, having occurred at the mately be made the basis for y at the fag end of his service that the impugned action of the applicant's pay with effect y from his monthly salary and able and unsustainable in law. to consider the applicant's ithhold the recovered amount, lly questioned the legality of d that the impugned recovery the applicable Railway Rules, udence and the law laid down tion of the respondents is also

SUR AJ BISH T SUR AJ BISH T

Item No.69 (Court-4)

stated to India, b being c learned the cons respond 3,28,283 rate of commen realisati

5. In has plac i. Th 7115 of ii. Jo SLP (C) Supreme iii. G 1356 of Chhattis o be violative of Articles 14 a being arbitrary, discriminatory a contrary to the principles of n counsel for the applicant submit sequential recovery deserve to b ents are, therefore, liable to ref 3/- recovered from the applicant 18% per annum from the re ncing from September, 2025, till on. n support of his submissions, lea ced reliance upon the following ju Thomas Daniel v. State of Kera f 2010, decided on 02.05.2022 by ogeswar Sahoo & Ors. v. Dist ) No. 5918 of 2024, decided o e Court. Gopal Prasad Naik v. State of Ch f 2023, decided on 22.08.2025 b sgarh at Bilaspur.

and 16 of the Constitution of and unreasonable, apart from natural justice. Accordingly, ts that the impugned order and be quashed and set aside. The fund the entire amount of Rs. t, together with interest at the espective dates of recovery, l the date of actual refund and arned counsel for the applicant udicial pronouncements: ala & Ors., Civil Appeal No. y the Hon'ble Supreme Court. trict Judge, Cuttack & Ors., on 04.04.2025 by the Hon'ble hhattisgarh & Ors., WPS No. by the Hon'ble High Court of

SUR AJ BISH T SUR AJ BISH T

Item No.69 (Court-4)

iv. Sy Appeal Hon'ble v. Sh Ors., O. Tribuna vi. Ja 1635 of vii. St 3500 of

viii. N Kumar by the H ix. Ex (C) No. Court of

6. Le upon the & Ors. 11527

yed Abdul Qadir & Ors. v. S Nos. 3351-3354 of 2003, dec Supreme Court. hri Sihor Ram, Ex-SSE, Grou .A. No. 2038 of 2020, decided o l. agdish Prasad Singh v. State f 2013, decided on 08.08.2024 by tate of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagd f 2006, decided on 02.04.2025 by National Council for Cement Bu & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 17342 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Ex-Inspector Sanjay Kumar v. U 13183 of 2023, decided on 31. f Delhi. earned counsel for the applican e judgment of the Hon'ble Supre v. Rafiq Masih (White Washe of 2014, decided on 18.12.2

State of Bihar & Ors., Civil cided on 16.12.2008 by the up 'C' v. Union of India & on 09.04.2024 by the Hon'ble of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. y the Hon'ble Supreme Court. dev Singh, Civil Appeal No. y the Hon'ble Supreme Court. uilding Materials v. Pradeep f 2024, decided on 09.04.2025 Union of India & Ors., W.P. .07.2025 by the Hon'ble High nt has further placed reliance eme Court in State of Punjab er) & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2014, and submits that the

SUR AJ BISH T SUR AJ BISH T

Item No.69 (Court-4)

impugne therein. categori recovery where su further judgmen Departm Memora impleme 22.06.20 the resp guidelin applican case.

7. O respond He subm were for scrutiny objectio effect fr ed recovery is squarely covered It is contended that the H ically identified certain classes y of excess payments would b uch recovery would result in un submitted that the principles nt were subsequently adopte ment of Personnel and Trai andum dated 02.03.2016 and ented by the Railway Administr 016 (Annexure A-6). Learned co pondents were under an obligati nes while initiating any recov nt, which admittedly have not b Opposing the grant of relief ents relies upon the averments m mits that prior to the applicant's r rwarded to the Accounts Depar y of the service records, the Ac on that the applicant's pay had n rom 22.10.2007. Consequently, a d by the principles laid down Hon'ble Supreme Court has s of employees from whom be impermissible, particularly ndue hardship or inequity. It is laid down in the aforesaid ed and circulated by the ining (DoPT) vide Office d were also adopted and ration vide Office Order dated ounsel, therefore, submits that ion to adhere to the aforesaid very proceedings against the been followed in the present f, learned counsel for the made in the counter affidavit. retirement, his service records rtment for pre-vetting. During ccounts Department raised an not been correctly fixed with a change list dated 07.03.2025

SUR AJ BISH T SUR AJ BISH T

Item No.69 (Court-4)

(Annexu retrospe further s issuance contend monthly balance salary, (DCRG) payable that he r 30.04.20 submits justified

8. In respond 31.12.20 challeng that no the resp discrepa already ure R-2) was issued, revi ectively for the period from 22 submitted that the consequential e of a show-cause notice dated that recovery was thereafter ef y salary in accordance with the re amount, which could not be was adjusted against his De ). It is also submitted that all th to the applicant were released w retired from service on attaining

026. On these grounds, learned that the action taken by the d and does not warrant interferen n rejoinder, learned counsel for ents have failed to address the ap 025, submitted in response to ging the proposed recovery. Lea useful purpose would be served ondents for fresh consideration, ancy pertains to the year 2007 been recovered from the ap ising the applicant's pay .10.2007 to 01.07.2024. It is l recovery was proposed after 07.03.2025. The respondents ffected through the applicant's evised change list and that the recovered from his regular ath-cum-Retirement Gratuity he retiral and settlement dues within the prescribed time and g the age of superannuation on d counsel for the respondents e Railway Administration is nce by this Tribunal. the applicant submits that the pplicant's representation dated the show-cause notice and arned counsel further submits d by remanding the matter to particularly when the alleged 7 and the entire amount has pplicant's salary and retiral

SUR AJ BISH T SUR AJ BISH T

Item No.69 (Court-4)

benefits have be allegedly any.

9. W pleading submitte recovery the acti have no that the decision that the the respo permittin period. excess p concealm

10. In Court in 1635 o

. It is also pointed out that no d een initiated against the con y responsible for the purported We have heard learned counsel fo gs available on record. We no ed a representation dated 31.1 y, raising specific objections to on initiated by the respondent ot placed on record any satisfa e said representation was duly n thereon was communicated to alleged error in pay fixation rela ondents sought to reopen the sam ng the applicant's pay fixation t The respondents have not de payment was occasioned by an ment on the part of the applicant n this regard, the principles laid d n Jagdish Prasad Singh v. Stat of 2013, decided on 08.08.20

departmental action appears to ncerned officials who were erroneous fixation of pay, if for the parties and perused the otice that the applicant had 2.2025 against the proposed the legality and propriety of ts. However, the respondents actory material demonstrating y considered and a reasoned the applicant. It is also noted ates to the year 2007, whereas me only in the year 2025, after to continue for a considerable emonstrated that the alleged ny misrepresentation, fraud or t. down by the Hon'ble Supreme te of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 024, are relevant. The law

SUR AJ BISH T SUR AJ BISH T

Item No.69 (Court-4)

governin has con mechani excess p hardship enunciat v. Rafiq be born employe retired f

11. In fixation proceed time. Th alleged fraud on recovery benefits hardship of exces are, ther respond ng recovery of alleged excess p nsistently recognised that such r ically, without examining the payment was made, the period f p likely to be caused to the emp ted by the Hon'ble Supreme Cou q Masih (White Washer) & Ors ne in mind while examining th ees, particularly those who are from service. n the present case, the alleged made with effect from 22.10 ings were initiated in March, 20 he applicant had neither induced excess payment through any m n his part been established. In th y of the alleged excess amoun , at the fag end of his service c p and would be contrary to the p ss payments laid down by the refore, of the considered view th ents in retrospectively revisin payments made to employees recovery cannot be permitted circumstances in which the for which it continued and the ployee. Further, the principles urt in State of Punjab & Ors.

s. (supra) are also required to he legality of recovery from due to retire or have already discrepancy pertains to pay .2007, whereas the recovery 25, after a substantial lapse of d the respondents to make the misrepresentation nor has any hese circumstances, permitting nt from his salary and retiral career, would result in undue principles governing recovery Hon'ble Supreme Court. We hat the impugned action of the ng the applicant's pay and

SUR AJ BISH T SUR AJ BISH T

Item No.69 (Court-4)

effecting sustaine

12. In Applica dated 07 are dire monthly date of r

13. Th terms. A stand di

/sb/

g consequential recovery of ed in the facts and circumstances n view of the aforesaid discu tion deserves to be allowed. Acc 7.03.2025 is hereby quashed an ected to refund the amount rec y salary and gratuity within a pe receipt of a certified copy of this he Original Application stands All pending Miscellaneous Ap sposed of accordingly. There sha

O.A. No. 2405 Rs. 3,28,283/- cannot be of the present case. ussion, the present Original cordingly, the impugned order nd set aside. The respondents covered from the applicant's eriod of two months from the s order. disposed of in the aforesaid pplications, if any, shall also all be no order as to costs. (Manish Garg) Member (J)

SUR AJ BISH T SUR AJ BISH T