Asgar Ali vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 13 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD Order Sheet Item no.: 9 O.A./1250/2026 (ALLAHABAD) [ RECOVERY ] [ SENIOR CITIZEN ] Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 1 Order Dated: 13/11/2026 ASGAR ALI Vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

For Applicant(s) Advocate :

For Respondent(s) Advocate : Order of The Tribunal Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, are present. Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, Advocate, states that this case has been allotted to him on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, office is directed to delete the name of Shri Anil Kumar and in its place print the name of Shri Ajay Kumar Rai as counsel for the respondents in the future cause lists. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer for interim relief. Learned counsel for the applicant states that initially a PPO was issued and a deduction against the commutation amount was shown as only Rs.2706/-. Suddenly, it was increased to Rs.7060/- which is illegal. On implementation of the Pay Commission, deduction against the commutation amount as shown was not increased by the department. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the Annexure No. A-4 (the information received/ obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005) and further argued that the department itself has admitted this fact which would be clear from this document. It is further argued that the department has also clarified that only the direction has been issued to the Bank to deduct Rs.2706/- only from the commutation of pension. If any extra amount is being deducted on behalf of the Bank, no direction has been issued to the Bank in this regard. Learned counsel for the official respondents states that the fact disclosed in the Annexure no. A-4 is correct. Direction has only been issued to deduct Rs.2706/- against the Commutation of pension which cannot be stayed. Thus, argued to reject the interim prayer. I have considered the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. Although respondent no.4 i.e. the Bank concerned is not represented by any counsel nor notice has been issued to it, yet, considering the fact disclosed in Annexure No. A-4 as well as the PPO, at this stage a prima facie case is made out to stay the deduction of the amount exceeding the amount of Rs.2706/-. Thus, since there is no direction by the department about increasing the amount of deduction, the recovery of amount exceeding Rs.2706/- is hereby stayed and it is clarified that recovery only to the extent of Rs.2706/- as previously directed by the respondent department can continue. Office is directed to issue notice to the respondent no.4. The case is admitted. A time of four weeks is allowed to file the counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List this matter on 05.01.2027 before Registrar’s Court for completion of pleadings. Justice Om Prakash VII Member (J) Madhu Kumari ( steno 'c' )