RAMESH CHAND SRIVASTAVA ALIAS RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA vs NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY on 4 November 2026

O R D E R

The present original application has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

(i) To issue writ order direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 4.7.2024 Annexure A-I passed by respondent NO. 4, for (making recovery of Rs. 4 lakh from the applicant’s pensionary benefits.

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the deducted amount of the applicant from his pensionary benefit with interest thereon.

(iii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.

(iv) To award cost in favour of the applicant”.

SRIVASTAVA

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The applicant was initially appointed as Khalasi in the Railways on 14.08.1986 under the Sports Quota and was subsequently promoted as Junior Clerk and Senior Clerk. He was also granted financial upgradations under the ACP scheme and was ultimately placed in Level-8 as Chief Office Superintendent. The applicant retired from service on 30.06.2024. After his retirement, the respondents treated his earlier pay fixation as erroneous and issued the recovery order dated 04.07.2024 for recovery of the alleged excess payment of ₹4,83,106/- from his retirement dues. The applicant submitted a representation dated 15.07.2024 against the said recovery, but no relief was granted. He contends that the excess payment, if any, was due to an error on the part of the department and he had neither misrepresented any fact nor committed any fraud. He submits that the recovery after retirement is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala (Civil Appeal No. 7115 of 2010) decided on 2.5.2022 and Jageswar SAhoo and others Vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & others reported in 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 592. Accordingly, he has approached this Tribunal seeking quashing of the recovery order and refund of the amount deducted from his retirement dues.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, denying the allegations made in the O.A. It has been stated that the applicant retired on 30.06.2024 from the post of Chief Office Superintendent, Bridge Workshop, Gorakhpur Cantonment. During the audit of his retiral dues, an error in pay fixation was detected and corrected vide corrigendum dated 28.06.2024. Consequently, an amount of Rs. 4,83,106/- was recovered from his DCRG. The respondents stated in the counter affidavit that the recovery was made under the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, to adjust

SRIVASTAVA

excess payment made without authority of law. They rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2012) 8 SCC 417 and State of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 SCC 267 and submit that the protection granted in Rafiq Masih (supra) is not applicable to the present case. They further stated that the applicant's representation dated 29.08.2024 was rejected by a speaking order dated 25.04.2025. Accordingly, they stated that the recovery is lawful and pray for dismissal of the Original Application.

4. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant, in which the facts stated in the Original Application have been reiterated and the contents of the counter affidavit have been denied. Nothing new has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit.

5. I have heard Shri Hari Shankar Chaurasia, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Seema Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

6. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was initially appointed as Khalasi on 14.08.1986 and subsequently promoted as Junior Clerk and Senior Clerk. He was granted financial upgradation in Level-6 with effect from 02.05.2008, followed by consequential pay fixation. Thereafter, his post of Chief Office Superintendent was upgraded to Level-8 vide order dated 07.05.2024, and he joined the upgraded post on 09.05.2024. It is further submitted that vide order dated 04.07.2024, the respondents treated the pay fixation granted to the applicant with effect from 01.09.2008 as erroneous and ordered recovery of Rs.4,83,106/- from his retiral dues, including gratuity. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the alleged excess payment was made due to the respondents' own mistake, without any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the applicant. The applicant, being a ministerial employee, had no role in the fixation

SRIVASTAVA

of his pay. Despite his representation dated 29.08.2024, the amount has not been refunded. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), Thomas Daniel (supra) and Jogeswar Sahoo (supra), learned counsel for the applicant argued that recovery of excess payment after retirement, particularly in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation and without affording an opportunity of hearing, is impermissible in law. Accordingly, he prayed for quashing of the impugned recovery order dated 04.07.2024 and refund of the recovered amount along with admissible interest.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the judgments relied upon by the applicant are distinguishable on facts and do not impose an absolute bar on recovery of excess payment in every case. It is contended that the respondents are legally entitled to correct an erroneous pay fixation and to recover any excess amount paid to the applicant, if found inadmissible under the applicable rules. The mere fact that the excess payment was made due to an error on the part of the department does not, by itself, make the correction of pay fixation illegal. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 SCC 267 supports the respondents' case, particularly where an employee has furnished an undertaking to refund any excess payment found to have been made. Therefore, if the applicant had furnished such an undertaking, he would be bound by the same and cannot subsequently challenge the recovery. It is further submitted that the corrigendum dated 28.06.2024 was issued to rectify the incorrect pay fixation and to bring the applicant's pay in accordance with the applicable Railway Board instructions. On the basis of the corrected pay fixation, the respondents calculated the excess amount of Rs. 4,83,106/- and

SRIVASTAVA

adjusted the same from the applicant's retiral dues. The action was taken after the alleged error in pay fixation came to the notice of the department. Learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the judgments in Rafiq Masih (supra), Thomas Daniel (supra) and Jogeswar Sahoo (supra) were delivered in their respective factual circumstances and cannot be applied mechanically without examining the facts and applicable rules governing the present case. It is submitted that the respondents have acted to correct an erroneous financial benefit and not with any intention to cause hardship to the applicant. Thus, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the impugned recovery was made on the basis of the corrected pay fixation and the amount found to have been paid in excess. The respondents have not committed any illegality in taking such action. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the Original Application, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties.

9. The facts which are not in dispute are that the applicant was initially appointed as Khalasi under the Sports Quota on 14.08.1986 and was subsequently promoted to the posts of Junior Clerk, Senior Clerk and Chief Office Superintendent. He was granted financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme and his pay was fixed by the respondents from time to time. It is also not the case of the respondents that the applicant had obtained financial benefit by committing fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of any fact. The alleged excess payment occurred due to the pay fixation made by the departmental authorities.

10. It is evident from the record that the alleged excess payment relates to the pay fixation made with effect from 01.09.2008. The applicant continued to receive the said benefit for a considerable

SRIVASTAVA

period and retired from service on 30.06.2024. The respondents issued the corrigendum dated 28.06.2024 and subsequently passed the recovery order dated 04.07.2024 for recovery of Rs.4,83,106/- from his retiral dues. Thus, the alleged excess payment continued for more than five years and the recovery was made after the retirement of the applicant.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), has clearly held as under: - ”It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service).

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

(iii) Recovery from 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 a 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”.

12. Similarly, in Thomas Daniel (supra) case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “(9) This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This 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. This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the

SRIVASTAVA

realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess.

(10) In Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Others1 this Court restrained recovery of payment which was given under the upgraded pay scale on account of wrong construction of relevant order by the authority concerned, without any misrepresentation on part of the employees. It was held thus : “5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation, the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs.”

(11) In Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India and Others2 this Court considered an identical question as under: “27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 76 1999. This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled:

(a) The excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee.

(b) Such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous.”

13. Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. M.K. Ravi Varma etc. etc. Vs. National Institute of Technology and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 8329–8336 of 2016, decided on 23.09.2026 in paragraph 17 to 24 has held as under:- “17. In Jagdev Singh (supra), the coordinate Bench considered paragraph 18 of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra), extracted above, and explained the legal position as follows: “11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was

SRIVASTAVA

clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.”

18. Respondents, as appellants before the Division Bench of the High Court, had placed Exhibit R2(c) which contained an undertaking given by the appellants conveying their willingness to permit recovery of such amounts in the event that the pay fixation was found to be erroneous. It was, thus, contended that the respondents had merely corrected the mistake in accordance with the entitlement of the appellants under the applicable rules.

19. The contention was accepted by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment. While placing reliance on Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra), it was held as follows: “32. Apex court was considering a batch of cases relating to recovery and re-fixation of pay of teachers in rectification of mistakes occurred while implementing the 5th and 6th pay commission orders. Apex court while upholding the same, held that unjust enrichment cannot be permitted. It is also pertinent to note that petitioners were not required to perform any additional duties on account of the placement as Associate Professors. Admittedly the petitioners have given their undertaking Ext R2(c) expressing their willingness for re- fixation of pay, refund of excess pay etc., as and when any mistake was detected, as in the cases considered by the apex court. The case of the petitioners do not come under that of exceptional categories. However we are of the view that fairness in action required that a notice was issued to them, before effecting re- fixation and recovery as well as de-designation.

33. Now that the reasons for re-fixation are already made known to petitioners and their contentions are already in the pleadings before this court, we do not think that issuance of a notice will serve any purpose, especially when we have found that they were not entitled to any benefits as originally granted. Moreover the petitioners approached this court only in 2012, much after the re fixation of pay and recovery were effected in early 2010. At this stage therefore we are not directing the appellants to undertake the empty formality of issuing notice or opportunity of hearing to petitioners.”

20. It is, therefore, clear that a mistake was committed in extending financial benefits to the appellants; and this was immediately withdrawn upon detection of such mistake. Such recovery of the amounts paid by mistake to the appellants, in view of the undertakings given by them, did not warrant interference by the Single Judge in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the Division Bench appears to be right in its interdiction.

21. Much emphasis has been placed by learned counsel for the appellants on the letter addressed by the Director (T), Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, to the Directors of all the National Institutes of Technology dated … (sic) March, 2013.

22. Sub-paragraph 4 of the last paragraph of such letter reads as follows: “iv) The benefits already given would not be recovered from the academic staff of the Institutes as directed by the Hon’ble Court and also as per NIT Councils decision.” 23. Since the recovery had already been effected from the appellants two years prior to the institution of their writ petition before the writ court, the aforesaid instruction would be of no avail.

SRIVASTAVA

24. Insofar as the circumstance of hardship canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, we need to observe that no such case had been pleaded in the writ petition. In any event, whether recovery of money would result in hardship has to be determined on the facts of each particular case. After all, we cannot presently conceive of a situation where recovery of money from the recipient would not cause hardship. However, for instance, if it is pleaded and proved to the satisfaction of the writ court that entirety of the excess payment received by the employee has since been spent towards medical treatment and that the employee concerned would face immense hardship in returning such excess payment, or if the same were recovered from him through initiation of appropriate proceedings, in a deserving case the Court would be justified in quashing the notice seeking recovery or refund. This would also be subject to the employee satisfying the Court that the excess payment was not received on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. Since no such case exists here, the contention is rejected” If the principle laid down in Dr. M.K. Ravi Varma (supra) case is taken into consideration, the undertaking, if any given by employee concerned at the time of preparation of pension paper for adjustment or refund of any excess payment at the time of settlement of retiral dues cannot be applied to recover the excess payment made due to fault of the respondents’ department itself. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. M.K. Ravi Varma (supra) case itself has held that hardship factor has to be determined on the facts of each particular case and this would be subject to the employee satisfying the court that the excess payment was not received on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part.

14. In this matter, applicant has taken a clear plea in his pleading that financial benefit allowed to the applicant during the service period was not owing to misrepresentation or fraud committed by him. It is settled position that department is empowered to rectify its mistake when it is detected but in this case, applicant is simply praying for refund of recovered amount from the retiral dues. Applicant was a Group-C employee and had already retired from service when the recovery was made. The alleged excess payment continued for more than five years and there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against him. The pay was fixed by the departmental authorities and the applicant had no role in such fixation. Therefore, the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq

SRIVASTAVA

Masih (supra) and Thomas Daniel (supra). The subsequent correction of pay fixation by the respondents may be permissible in accordance with the rules, but recovery of the amount already paid to him from the retiral dues of the applicant would cause undue hardship to him and cannot be sustained in law.

15. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned recovery order dated 04.07.2024 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount of Rs.4,83,106/- to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the amount is not refunded within the aforesaid period, the applicant shall be entitled to interest at the GPF rate applicable from time to time. There shall be no order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.

(Justice Om Prakash –VII)

Member (J)

Manish

SRIVASTAVA