ANANT K HANDORE vs CENTRAL RAILWAY on 5 November 2026

ORDER

The present Original Application is the second round of litigation before this Tribunal.

2. The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal in OA No.470/2023, which was disposed of on 03rd July, 2023 by passing the following order: “Heard Shri Singh.

2. He points out that respondents have started deducting amount of Rs.2900/- from monthly pension of the applicant from 01.01.2003 contending that excess payment of pension had been made to him amounting to Rs.2,08,800/-. Aggrieved of this, the applicant has submitted a representation to Respondent No.1 which is yet to be decided.

3. In view of these facts, the O.A. is disposed of at admission stage, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, directing Respondent No.1 i.e., General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai to consider representation submitted by the applicant as per provisions of relevant rules and binding instructions on the subject and applicable Court decisions and decide it within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

Munarshi

3 OA No.86/2024

3. The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “8.A That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set-aside order Exhibit "A" dated 03.11.2023 passed by Respondent No.1 and order dated 22.12.2022 Exhibit "C" holding that the order of recovery of the pension is ab-initio void and the recovered pension amount be returned to the applicant with interest.

8. A1 This Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to release/pay the gratuity of the applicant with 18% interest from the date of superannuation.

8. B That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set-aside order Exhibit "B" passed by Respondent No.2 and be further pleased to pass an order that since the recovery of the pension is ab-initio void the same may be returned to the applicant with interest.

8. C Cost be provided for.

8. D Pass any other or such further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deep fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the present case.”

3.2

The Applicant was working as a Khalasi, which is a Class IV post in the establishment of Assistant Works Shop, Accounts Officer, Central Railway, Matunga, Mumbai. The applicant retired on 31st January, 2018. Initially, the pension of the applicant was fixed as Rs.9,000/- per month, which gradually

Munarshi

4 OA No.86/2024

reached Rs. 12,420/-. The applicant was working as a Khalasi and retired from the same post, which can be ascertained from the Pension Payment Order issued to him. 3.3

It is submitted that the applicant received order dated 22nd December, 2022, which shows that due to non-deduction of the monthly commutation instalment of Rs.3600/- for the period from 01st February, 2018 to 30th November, 2022, excess pension had been paid to the applicant and therefore, the said recovery amount of Rs.2,08,800/- would be deducted on a monthly basis at the rate of Rs.2900/- in 72 instalments w.e.f. 01st January, 2023 to 31st December, 2028. 3.4

It is further submitted that applicant received a letter dated 10th January, 2023, wherein the applicant was asked to give his consent for either making payment of the lumpsum amount and/or giving consent for enhanced recovery from the monthly pension. The applicant did not give his consent to the said letter dated 10th January, 2023.

Munarshi

5 OA No.86/2024

3.5

It is submitted that pursuant to the said impugned order dated 22nd December, 2022 (Annexure A-2), the applicant received a fixed pension to the tune of Rs.8,820/- on 28th December, 2022, which was further reduced to Rs.5,920/- in the months of January, February and March, 2023. However, the last pension received by the applicant on 26th April, 2023 was Rs. 6,280/- which is reflected in his account statement. Now, the applicant is receiving a monthly pension of about Rs.6,000/- per month. 3.6

It is further submitted that after receiving the lesser amount of pension, the applicant filed a representation and requested that deduction from pension be stopped. He stated that, considering his health condition, financial condition, and the health of his wife, he requested restoration of his pension. By the said representation, the applicant also drew attention to the Government orders that the recovery was impermissible, but nothing was heard from the respondents.

Munarshi

6 OA No.86/2024

3.7

It is submitted that when the applicant did not receive any reply from the respondent, he filed the Original Application, which was registered as O.A.No.470/2023, titled Anant K. Handore Vs. Union of India & others. When the case came before the Tribunal at the admission stage on 03rd July, 2023, it was directed to Respondent No.1, General Manager, Central Railway Mumbai to consider the representation submitted by the applicant as per the provisions of the relevant rules and binding instructions on the subject and applicable Court decisions and decide the same within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 3.8

It is submitted that the applicant received the certified copy of the order on 08th August, 2023 and filed the representation in the Office of the respondents on 18th August, 2023, which is evident from the seal showing the date and signature of the Officer. It is further submitted that from the order passed by the Respondent No.1, it appears that he was already in receipt of the order on 21st July, 2023. In any event, the respondents have not complied with the directions of the Tribunal and has not taken a

Munarshi

7 OA No.86/2024

decision within the stipulated period of four weeks. The Respondent, General Manger, Central Railway, Mumbai, rejected the said representation of 03rd November, 2023 i.e., after a period of 76 days. 3.9

Hence, this Original Application.

4. After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA. It has been submitted that on scrutiny of the applicant’s representation, it was observed that the applicant was objecting to the recovery made by the Pension Paying Bank i.e., State Bank of India, Ambernath (West), on account of excess pension paid to him. Vide letter dated 10th January, 2023, the applicant was informed regarding the excess payment. The applicant had opted for commutation of 40% of the basic pension and accordingly a lumpsum commuted value of pension amounting to Rs. 3,53,981/- was paid to him on 01st February, 2018. Consequently, pension was payable to him at 60% of the basic pension + DA. Thus, excess amount of Rs. 2,08,800/- was paid to the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant did not

Munarshi

8 OA No.86/2024

inform the authorities regarding the excess payment, despite being aware that he was receiving pension in excess of his entitlement. Therefore, the action for recovery was taken in accordance with the applicable provisions. 4.2

It is submitted that in terms of paragraph 5 read with paragraph 24.2 of the Master Circular No.61 (2019) dated 16th December, 2019, where a pensioner opts for Commutation of pension, the reduction in the amount of pension on account of commutation shall take effect from the date on which the commuted value of pension is credited by the Bank to the pensioner's account to which pension is being credited. Further, as per paragraph 24.2 of the aforesaid Master Circular, the provisions of paragraph 5 are required to be brought to the notice of the disbursing authority i.e., the Bank. 4.3

It is submitted that the aforesaid provisions have been complied with by the Railway through the PPO issued to the Bank and copy of the same is also furnished to the pensioner. All relevant particulars, including the reduced pension and the date of

Munarshi

9 OA No.86/2024

restoration of pension, were specifically mentioned in the PPO. The excess payment was, therefore, due to an error on the part of the Bank. 4.4

It is further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also distinguished the cases like Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. Vs. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 475 and Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, wherein, recovery of excess payment was not allowed in view of the fact that the employees concerned were mostly retired or were on verge of retirement, were not at fault, and the recovery, which was ordered after a gap of many years, would cause hardship. 4.5

It is further contended that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the instructions issued by the Government in this regard, the department are required to take appropriate action in cases involving wrongful or excess payment. In Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 417, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the

Munarshi

10 OA No.86/2024

issue of recovery of excess payments. The relevant principles relied upon by the respondents are as follows: “i. In all cases where the excess payment on account of wrong Pay fixation grant of scale without due approvals, promotions without following the procedure, or in excess of entitlements to come to notice, immediate corrective action must be taken.

ii. In case like this where the authority decided to rectify an incorrect order, a show-case notice may be issued to the concerned employee informing him of the decision to rectify the order which has resulted in the over payment and intention to recover such excess payments, reasons for the decision should be clearly conveyed to enable the employee to represent against the same. Speaking orders may thereafter be paused after consideration of the representation, if any, made by the employee.

iii. Wherever any excess payment has been done on accounts of fraud, misrepresentation, collusion, favoritism negligence or, carelessness, etc., role of those responsible for overpayments in such cases, and the employee who benefitted from such actions should be

Munarshi

11 OA No.86/2024

identified, and departmental/criminal actions should be considered in appropriate cases.

iv. Recovery should be made in all cases overpayment barring few exceptions of extreme hardships, no amount of recovery may be allowed without the approval of Department of Expenditure.

v. While ordering recovery, all the circumstances of the case should be taken into account. In appropriate cases, the concerned employee may be allowed to refund the money in suitable installments with approval of Secretary in the Ministry, in consultation with FA. The employee was receiving pension w.e.f 01.02.2018 for Rs. 9000+ DR (Full Original pension without deduction of commutation recovery). At the time of retirement, he had opted for commutation of 40% of the basic pension amount and accordingly lump sum commuted pension amount of Rs 3,53,981/- was paid to him on 01.02.2018 at the time of his retirement. This fact is clearly mentioned by Railway as per the PPO issued to the Bank and copy of the same is given to the Pensioner. All the details such as reduced Pension, date of restoration of pension is mentioned in the PPO. The CPPC SBI in their letter dated 10.01.2023 had directed the pension Paying

Munarshi

12 OA No.86/2024

branch SBI Ambernath to recover the excess amount paid to the Pensioner in this regard. The SBI pension paying Branch started recovery of the amount excess paid to the pensioner w.e.f. from 01.01.2023 @ Rs 2900/- in 72 instalments. 4.6

It is further submitted that in the PPO, the commuted portion of pension amounting to Rs. 3,600/- per month was required to be deducted from the pension with effect from 01st February, 2018 to 31st January, 2033 or date of death of pensioner, whichever is earlier. 4.7

It is further averred that the lumpsum commutation amount was paid on the basis of application submitted by the applicant and duly sanctioned by the competent authority. Shri Anant Handore, the applicant, had furnished an official undertaking at the time of his retirement, agreeing to refund any amount which was found to have been paid to him in excess of his entitlement or credited to his account erroneously. 4.8

The respondents have relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High of Punjab and Haryana & others

Munarshi

13 OA No.86/2024

Vs Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, in support of their contention regarding the effect of such an undertaking. 4.9

It is further submitted that the applicant’s contention that he was not aware of the excess payment and that he should not be required to refund the same is not tenable. According to the respondents, the Railways had duly complied with the applicable provisions and rules applicable in this matter as detailed above and Bank is also correct in recovering the excess pension paid to the pensioner. 4.10 The applicant also filed an amendment application seeking an additional prayer that the respondents be directed to pay/release gratuity of the applicant along with interest. The said application was allowed and amendments were carried out. In this regard, it was submitted by the applicant that he had been sanctioned gratuity of Rs. 1,51,200/-, but had been paid only an amount of Rs. 14,161/-. It was argued that applicant was not given any intimation or show-cause regarding the recovery of the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 1,37,029/- taken from ECC Bank

Munarshi

14 OA No.86/2024

from his gratuity. It was submitted that recovery from gratuity can be made only if the retired railway servant gives his consent for doing so in writing to the administration. In this regard, the applicant relied on Rule 15(4) (iii) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

5. The respondents, while replying to the amended OA, have stated that the applicant had taken a loan from ECC Bank, the outstanding of which amounting to Rs. 1,37,029 and Rs. 10 for I-Card was recovered from the gross gratuity of Rs. 1,51,200/- calculated in the case of the applicant. It was, therefore, stated that the applicant had been given full gratuity as available to him.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the pleadings and material placed on record.

7. The facts are that the applicant was working as Khalasi with the respondents and superannuated on 31st January, 2018. He had opted for commutation of pension at the time of superannuation and was allowed lumpsum commuted value of

Munarshi

15 OA No.86/2024

Rs.3,53,981/-. Subsequently, the applicant received letter dated 10th January, 2023 for recovery from his pension. Thereafter, his pension was reduced on account of the said recovery.

8. It is the contention of the applicant that no amount could be recovered from his pension as he belonged to Group ‘C’ and in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, recovery is not permissible from employees belonging to Group ‘C’, retired employees or employees, who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. It was also submitted that the applicant was not guilty of furnishing any incorrect information.

9. The respondents have submitted that the applicant had opted for commutation of pension and, having been paid the lumpsum commuted value, recovery of the commuted value was required to be made from the normal pension of the applicant. It was submitted that this fact was mentioned in the PPO issued to the applicant, along with the period during which the recovery was

Munarshi

16 OA No.86/2024

to be made. It was further submitted that since the Bank had made pension payments of the full value of pension without the recovery of commutation value of pension, there was an excess payment, which was being recovered from the applicant. It was also submitted that at the time of submitting the application for pension and other retiral benefits, an undertaking is given by the employee to refund any excess payment that might be made to him.

10. The respondents relied on the decision in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana & others Vs Jagdev Singh (supra), to contend that the restriction on recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery, as enunciated in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), would not be applicable where the employee has been placed on advance notice in the form of an undertaking, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of High of Punjab and Haryana & others Vs Jagdev Singh (supra).

11. The second issue pertains to gratuity, which was brought in by way of amendment to the OA. Facts therein are that

Munarshi

17 OA No.86/2024

the applicant was entitled to gratuity of Rs.1,51,200/-. However, he was paid only an amount of Rs.14,161/-. This was because an amount of Rs.1,37,029/- had been recovered by the respondents on account of the outstanding loan taken by the applicant from ECC Bank.

12. In this regard, it has been contended by the applicant that no recovery can be made from the retirement gratuity unless consent has been given by the employee. It was submitted that the applicant had not given any consent to the Railway Administration for any such recovery and, therefore, in view of Rule 15(4)(iii) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, no recovery could have been made.

13. The respondents submitted that the applicant had given his consent to the Branch for such recovery at the time of taking the loan. It was also submitted that it is not a case where the amount of gratuity has not been paid to the applicant. The full amount of entitlement has been paid to the applicant.

Munarshi

18 OA No.86/2024

14. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the pleadings on record.

15. Non-recovery of any excess amount paid to the applicant cannot be claimed as a matter of right by an employee who has received such excess amount. The Courts, including the Hon’ble Apex Court, have time and again held that such a right is to be considered on the basis of equity and, therefore, on the basis of the facts of each case. In its decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court outlined certain situations in which recovery would be impermissible. One such situation was recovery from retired employees or employee who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. In its subsequent judgment in the case of High of Punjab and Haryana & others Vs Jagdev Singh (supra), while dealing with the proposition of recovery from retired employees or employees due to retire, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

Munarshi

19 OA No.86/2024

“…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 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.”

16. Admittedly, in the case of the applicant, an undertaking had been given by him at the time of his retirement. In view of the decision in High of Punjab and Haryana & others Vs. Jagdev Singh (supra), the said undertaking would constitute advance notice to the applicant, and the excess amount paid would, therefore, be liable to be recovered.

17. It would not be out of place to mention here that this is a case where the applicant had already received the commuted value of pension in lumpsum and had also been receiving the same amount by way of full pension. This amounts to double payment of the same amount. Such undue enrichment at the cost of the Government exchequer cannot be permitted, even otherwise. The applicant has also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in OA

Munarshi

20 OA No.86/2024

No.702/2023, judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.7154/2019 (The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Mrs. Rekha Vijay Dubey), Writ Petition No.7221/2019 (The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Mr. Sitaram Mamtaji Pote) and Writ Petition No.7191/2019 (The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Mr. Shashikant K. Chinchkar), OA No. 2634/2023 decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal and judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Sumita Bhadra Vs. State Bank of India & Others, W.P. No.22759(W) of 2019. The said decisions do not help the cause of the applicant as in those cases, either the amounts of salary paid during service period were refixed after having been paid for more than five years and within one year or after retirement of the employees and without notice to the employees. In the case of the applicant, the recovery has been made within five years. Again, it is not a case where the salary or pension has been refixed. The pension had been correctly fixed, the recover on account of commutation was mentioned, but the commutation amount was not being recovered. The applicant was all along

Munarshi

21 OA No.86/2024

aware of his entitlement and hence excess payment being received. He cannot be equated with the applicants in the cases referred, as they were not aware of wrong fixations, had enjoyed the amounts received over long periods and were required to refund the same by way of orders issued close to or after their superannuation.

18. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the action of the respondents in making recovery of the excess amount.

19. The second issue is with regard to payment of gratuity. Here again, it is not a case where the gratuity has not been paid to the applicant. It can be said that gratuity was paid in two parts:

(i) One part was paid to the Bank towards the outstanding loan taken by the applicant; and

(ii) The remaining amount was paid to the applicant.

20. The contention of the applicant is that, having not given any consent to the respondents, they could not have made any recovery from his retirement gratuity. Reliance has been placed on Rule 15(4)(iii)(c) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The said rule is reproduced below:-

Munarshi

22 OA No.86/2024

“15(4)(iii)(c) In respect of the dues as mentioned in sub-clause (a) of clause (i) The Quasi Government and non-Government dues, such as amounts payable by a Railway servant to Consumer Co-operative Societies, Consumer Credit societies or the dues payable to an autonomous organization by the Railway servant while on deputation may be recovered from the retirement gratuity which has become payable to the retiring railway servant provided, he gives his consent for doing so in writing to the administration."

21. From the above, it is clear that the respondents can recover outstanding dues payable to Consumer Cooperative Credit Society or an autonomous organization only where consent has been given to the Administration. An amount of Rs.1,37,029/- was paid on behalf of the applicant to the Employees Cooperative Credit Bank. Whenever a loan is taken from an Employees’ Cooperative Society or Bank, an undertaking is obtained from the employee at the time of sanction of the loan itself. In my opinion, no separate undertaking is required to be obtained again at the time

Munarshi

23 OA No.86/2024

of retirement. Further, it is not a case where the employee has not made the payment. The payment has been made on behalf of the employee towards his outstanding loan liability.

22. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the action of the respondents in making payments for the outstanding dues payable by the applicant to ECC Bank from his gratuity.

23. In view of the above discussion, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Pending MAs, if any stand closed.

(Sangam Narain Srivastava)

Member (A)

dm.

Munarshi