Manjit Singh vs M/O RAILWAYS

1 (OA No.819/2025)


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH

O.A.No. 060/819/2025

Pronounced on : 31.08.2026
(Reserved on : 18.08.2026)


HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)


Manjit Singh, aged about 70 years, son of Shri Joginder Singh, resident of
1542/1, Sunder Nagar, near Railway Dhuri Line, Ludhiana.

...Applicant
(Advocate: Sharwan Sehgal, present through VC)

VERSUS
1. Northern Railway, Ferozepur through its Divisional Railway Manager.

2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railways, Ferozepur.

…Respondent(s)

(Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC)
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana
Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, OU=CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a
9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77,
PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN,
SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094
53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59,
CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 13:17:45+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Satyanar
ayana
Vanapalli

2 (OA No.819/2025)


O R D E R
HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A):
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, whereby, the applicant has sought the
relief that “ the applicant may kindly be granted the refund of the amount of
recovery made from the retirement benefits of the claim of the applicant
along with interest @18% per annum and the impugned order dated
29.11.2024 (Annexure A/1) may kindly be quashed.”


2. The applicant in its OA has submitted the following:-

i) The applicant had joined the Northern Railway on 10.11.1987 as Diesel
Cleaner.

ii) It is submitted by the applicant that the applicant was promoted to
TTE Ludhiana Station (Commercial) in the year 2000 and afterwards the
applicant was promoted time and again and ultimately he was promoted as
Chief Ticket Inspector and he retired on 31.12.2024 as Chief Ticket
Inspector. The Pension Payment Order of the applicant dated 30.12.2024
(Annexure A/2).
iii) Further, as per order dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure A/1), it was stated
that the applicant was paid wrong salary w.e.f. 08.12.2022 and recovery
was ordered of the excess salary given to the applicant to be deducted from
his retiral benefits. Therefore, the applicant prayed that the present OA be
allowed.
3. Notice was issued to the respondents. The written statement has been
submitted by the respondents on 19.11.2025, wherein it is submitted as
follows:-

Digitally signed by Satyanarayana
Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, OU=CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a
9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77,
PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN,
SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094
53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59,
CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 13:17:45+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Satyanar
ayana
Vanapalli

3 (OA No.819/2025)


i) The applicant has filed the present O.A seeking the refund on the
amount of recovery made from the retiral benefits of the applicant by the
department. At the time of retirement, the applicant was already in the
knowledge of the deductions being made from his retiral benefits and cannot
be allowed to raise the issue at a belated stage and thus is estopped by his
own actions.

ii) The applicant joined the Railway service on 09.11.1987 as Diesel
Cleaner and was initially posted at Ludhiana. Thereafter, the applicant was
promoted as Travelling Ticket Inspector (TTI) on 11.10.2011 in Grade Pay of
Rs.4200/- and later was promoted as Chief Inspector of Tickets (CIT) on
08.12.2022. The applicant retired from Railway service on attaining the age
of superannuation i.e. 60 years on 31.12.2024 while working as Chief
Inspector of Tickets(CIT), Firozepur Division.

iii) It is averred by the respondents in the written statement that during
the scrutiny of the pay records of the applicants, the observations were
raised by the Accounts Department pointing out that the basic pay of the
applicant had been erroneously fixed w.e.f. 11.10.2011 at Rs.15,810/- which
ought to have been correctly fixed at Rs.14,270 in accordance with the
applicable rules of pay fixation. This error of wrong pay fixation resulted in
an overpayment of amount of Rs.8,21,864/- and according the pay of the
applicant was revised vide office letter No. 940-E/23/P.Fixation/P1A dated
11.09.2024 (Annexure R/1).

iv) The applicant vide letter dated 18.9.2024 (Annexure R/2) was duly
informed through show cause notice regarding the vetting of his pay and the
recovery which will be made from his retiral benefits. The applicant was
granted five days of time to submit objections, if any, from the date of
issuance of the notice and failure to do so will be construed as an
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana
Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, OU=CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a
9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77,
PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN,
SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094
53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59,
CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 13:17:45+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Satyanar
ayana
Vanapalli

4 (OA No.819/2025)


acknowledge of the agreements. The applicant did not submit any
objections within the given stipulated time and so the department revised
and adjusted vide order dated 29.11.2024, the pay of the applicant in
accordance with the observations of the Accounts Department. The
applicant has failed to bring this fact before the Hon'ble Court and is trying
to mislead the court to claim the relief.

v) The applicant was informed regarding his re-fixation of pay before his
retirement strictly in accordance with the extant rules and instructions
circulated under RBE No.27/2009, dated 06.02.2009 (Annexure R/3)
governing pay fixation of Railway employees according to which the system
of pre-vetting of settlement papers has been adopted in order to ensure
correctness of pay fixation and to avoid any financial irregularities or
hardship to employees at the time of retirement. Therefore, the
respondents prayed that the present OA is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. Heard both the counsels and have read the averments and pleadings
made in the present OA.
5. The facts and circumstances of the present OA are squarely covered by
the judgments already passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih , reported in (2015) 4 SCC
344 . In this case, it is clear that the applicant was not at fault for fixation
of his pay by the Department as he has not misrepresented any facts.
Further, the recovery has been made from the retiral dues which is not
permissible as per the Rafiq Masih’s case, which states as follows:-
“(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.
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana
Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, OU=CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a
9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77,
PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN,
SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094
53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59,
CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 13:17:45+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Satyanar
ayana
Vanapalli

5 (OA No.819/2025)


(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.”

Further, the Department is also at liberty to refix the pay prospectively and
not retrospectively.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the present OA is allowed to the extent that
impugned order dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure A/1) is quashed to the extent
of recovery to be made from the applicant. Thereby, the respondents are
directed to refund the overpayment of amount of Rs.8,21,864/- deducted
from the pensionary dues of the applicant and to refund the same within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order. Thereafter any further delay will be paid with interest @ GPF rates to
the applicant. No order as to costs.

(ANJALI BHAWRA)
MEMBER (A)

/sv/
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana
Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, OU=CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a
9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77,
PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN,
SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094
53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59,
CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 13:17:45+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Satyanar
ayana
Vanapalli