SARAMMA SIMON vs Southern Railway

-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00308/2021
th
Wednesday this the 28 day of October 2026
C O R A M :
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Saramma Simon,
Aged 60, W/o.E.Simon Zacharia,
Residing at T.C.11/925,
Nalanda Junction, NRA 1,
Nanthancode, Thiruvananthapuram – 03.
Retired Office Superintendent,
Engineering Department, Southern Railway,
Divisional Office, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.Sudhir Kumar B)
v e r s u s
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Government of India,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. Southern Railway, Headquarters Office,
Chennai – 600 003 represented by its General Manager.
3. Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Headquarters Office,
Personnel Branch, Chennai – 600 003.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railways,
Thiruvananthapuram Divisional Office,
Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.N.Anilkumar, SPC)
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-2-
th
This application having been heard on 14 October, 2026 the
th
Tribunal on 28 October, 2026 delivered the following :
O R D E R
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
The brief facts of the case are as follows – the applicant joined the
Railway service as a Junior Clerk in the South Central Railway on
01.12.1980 and was transferred to the Southern Railway, Chennai in
December 1981. She was promoted as Senior Clerk on 18.02.1987 and
subsequently transferred to the Thiruvananthapuram Division as a Junior
Clerk, on reversion, pursuant to her request for transfer on 23.03.1992.
As evidenced by Annexure A-1, the Railway Board, the apex
administrative body of the Indian Railways, advised the Southern
Railway that she was eligible for the first financial upgradation under the
Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme with effect from 01.10.1999
and the second financial upgradation under the ACPS with effect from
01.12.2004. The said upgradations were duly implemented by the
Southern Railway. Subsequently, upon the introduction of the Modified
Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, she was granted the third
financial upgradation with effect from 01.12.2010. She ultimately retired
from service on 30.06.2020.
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-3-
2. It is submitted that, on the date of her retirement, the applicant was
neither furnished with the requisite pension papers nor paid her
retirement settlement benefits. The benefits were withheld without
issuing any prior notice or communicating the reasons therefor. The
respondents did not even inform her of the grounds on which her
settlement benefits were withheld. The applicant accordingly submits
that the withholding of her retirement benefits without prior notice or
communication of reasons was arbitrary and prejudicial to her legitimate
interests.
3. The respondents issued the applicant's Pension Payment Order,
produced as Annexure A-8, only on 19.08.2020, nearly two months after
her retirement. Even thereafter, her regular pension was withheld until
November 2020, without any notice or explanation. No provisional
pension was paid to her during the intervening period. She was thus
deprived of both her regular pension and provisional pension during a
period immediately following her retirement, when she was entitled to
receive her pensionary benefits in accordance with the applicable rules.
She submits that the unexplained withholding of pension was contrary to
the applicable pension rules and caused serious financial prejudice to her.
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-4-
4. Although the applicant retired on 30.06.2020, the respondents
communicated the withdrawal of the third financial upgradation granted
with effect from 01.12.2010 only on 25.03.2021, through Annexure
A-18. Thus, nearly nine months after her retirement, she was informed
that the third financial upgradation had been granted erroneously and that
her pay was being reduced retrospectively with effect from 01.12.2010.
Consequentially, her pension was also reduced. No prior notice was
issued to her, nor was she afforded an opportunity of being heard before
this adverse decision was taken. The applicant contends that the
impugned action is arbitrary, procedurally unfair and violative of the
principles of natural justice.
5. The applicant submits that the retrospective reduction of her
pay and the consequential reduction of pension after retirement cannot
be sustained unless the action is supported by the applicable statutory
provisions and undertaken in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
She relies upon Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993,
insofar as applicable to the facts of the case, and contends that the
respondents could not unilaterally impose adverse consequences
upon her pensionary entitlement without complying with the
governing legal requirements. No opportunity of hearing was
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-5-
afforded before the impugned action was taken. She accordingly
challenges the legality of the retrospective reduction and seeks its
annulment.
6. The applicant submits that the respondents have adopted a
materially different stand in their reply statement before this Tribunal.
Whereas she had earlier been granted the first and second ACP
upgradations pursuant to the Railway Board's advice and was
subsequently granted the third MACP upgradation, the respondents now
contend that she was not eligible for the first and second financial
upgradations but was eligible for the third upgradation. They further
contend that the grade pay admissible in the third upgradation was only
Rs.4200/- and not Rs.4600/-. This revised position has been advanced in
the present proceedings, notwithstanding the earlier implementation of
the financial upgradations and the passage of several years. This change
in stand raises serious questions regarding the consistency, evidentiary
basis and procedural fairness of the impugned action.
7. Without prejudice to the applicant's other contentions, even
assuming that the revised stand taken by the respondents is legally
sustainable, the respondents were required to follow the principles of
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-6-
natural justice before taking any adverse decision affecting her pay and
pension. Having earlier communicated the impugned decision through
Annexure A-18, the respondents could not introduce a materially
different basis for denying or modifying her financial entitlements
without affording her a reasonable opportunity to respond. The revised
stand was taken in the reply statement filed during the pendency of the
O.A in 2023. Nevertheless, no fresh notice was issued and no opportunity
of hearing was afforded to her. She submits that such a procedure is
contrary to the requirements of procedural fairness and warrants
interference by this Tribunal.
8. It is submitted that the records referred to by her establish that she
was granted the first ACP upgradation with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- with
effect from 01.10.1999 and the second ACP upgradation with Grade Pay
of Rs.4200/- with effect from 01.12.2004. She was thereafter granted the
third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with effect from
01.12.2010, carrying Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-, as reflected in the relevant
service and pay-fixation records relied upon by her. She relies upon
Annexure A-1 and the other relevant annexures, including Annexure
A-10, Annexure A-11, Annexure A-12 and Annexure A-15, in support of
her claim.
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-7-
9. It is further submitted that the respondents' own reply statement,
particularly the tabular particulars appearing at page 3 thereof, records
that the applicant was drawing Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- with effect from
01.10.1999 pursuant to the first ACP upgradation. The relevant question
is whether the financial upgradations granted and implemented earlier
were lawfully withdrawn in accordance with the applicable rules and
procedures. She contends that the respondents have not demonstrated any
valid basis for retrospectively unsettling the earlier benefits granted to
her pursuant to the Railway Board's advice. Nor can the respondents
merely rely upon a subsequent interpretation of the applicable provisions
to justify retrospective reduction of pay and pension without addressing
the original grant, the relevant service records and the procedural
safeguards available to her.
10. The applicant further relies upon Railway Board letter RBE
No.256/2004 dated 13.12.2004, which, according to her, supports the
contention that past cases need not be reopened in the circumstances
covered by the said instruction. The applicability of this instruction must
be considered in the light of the nature and dates of the financial
upgradations granted to her. She also contends that Railway Board
Circular No.45/2016 dated 26.04.2016, relating to the MACP Scheme,
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-8-
cannot automatically be applied to invalidate financial upgradations
earlier granted under the ACP Scheme without examining the precise
scope of the circular and the applicable transitional provisions. The
respondents are, therefore, required to establish that the instructions
relied upon by them actually govern her case and authorise the
retrospective action taken against her.
11. It is submitted that an adverse decision affecting the applicant's
pay and pension cannot lawfully be sustained merely on the basis of
assumptions or an isolated interpretation of the financial-upgradation
scheme. The respondents must consider the Railway Board's advice, the
actual dates on which the upgradations were granted, the grade pay
attached to each upgradation, the relevant service records and the
applicable Railway Board instructions. It is further submitted that the
respondents' action has resulted in the withholding or recovery of
Rs.347810/- from her, as reflected in the relevant records and Annexure
A-17. She contends that the recovery is unlawful, particularly because
the financial upgradations had been granted and implemented by the
department and the impugned action was taken without prior notice or an
opportunity of hearing. She relies upon the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-9-
Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 , concerning circumstances in which
recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible because of
the hardship and inequity involved. She submits that the protections
recognised in the said judgment must be considered in the light of her
retirement, the nature of the alleged excess payment, the period to which
the payment relates and the circumstances in which the benefits were
granted. The respondents must establish the legal basis for the recovery
and demonstrate that it falls within the limits permitted by the applicable
rules and judicial precedents. In the absence of such justification, the
applicant seeks quashing of the impugned recovery and restoration of the
amount withheld or recovered, together with consequential relief as may
be admissible in law.
12. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the applicant
seeks the following reliefs -
1. Declare that the conduct of the second respondent
in having withheld an amount of Rs.347810/- from the
Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity payable to the applicant
on her retirement as grossly illegal and wrong and
violative of Annexure A-20 Office Circular.
2. Call for the records relating to the issuance of
Annexure A-6 and issue a direction to the respondents 2
to 4 to reimburse an amount of Rs.347810/- together with
interest at 12% per annum accruing from 30.06.2020 till
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-10-
date of payment being the amount illegally withheld by
the respondents from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity
benefit payable to the applicant on her retirement within
a time limit to tbe prescribed by this Tribunal.
3. Retirement benefits of Rs.185316/- and pension of
Rs.1425/- per month as of now.
4. Award costs of and incidental to this application.
5. Pass such other orders or directions as deemed
just fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
6. Call for the records relating to the issuance of
Annexure A-6 and Annexure A-18 and quash the same to
the extent to get the benefit of Annexure A-4 order.
13. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein it is
stated that as per the ACPS, the applicant was not entitled to the first
financial upgradation with effect from 01.10.1999, since she had already
earned a regular promotion to the post of Senior Clerk (Grade Pay of
Rs.2800/-) on 18.02.1987, within 12 years of her initial entry into service
on 01.12.1980. Similarly, she was not entitled to the second financial
upgradation with effect from 01.12.2004, as she had earned another
promotion to the post of Senior Clerk (Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-) on
01.11.2003, before completion of 24 years of service from the date of her
initial entry into service. Under the MACP Scheme, she would be
entitled to the third financial upgradation with effect from 01.12.2010, on
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-11-
completion of 30 years of service reckoned from 01.12.1980, in the next
higher Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- and not Rs.4600/-. It is submitted that the
applicant, at her own request and on her own volition, sought transfer to
the Trivandrum Division of Southern Railway in the initial recruitment
grade of Junior Clerk, on bottom seniority. Consequent upon such
transfer, the promotion to the post of Senior Clerk, which she had earned
in South Central Railway, Secunderabad, on 18.02.1987, was foregone.
However, her pay of Rs.1350/- was protected. Thereafter, on 01.11.2003,
she was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in the Trivandrum Division
of Southern Railway pursuant to restructuring. The said promotion is
required to be reckoned as her second regular promotion for the purpose
of determining her entitlement to financial upgradations under the
ACP/MACP Schemes. Any contrary interpretation would enable her to
derive an undue double benefit from her own-request transfer from South
Central Railway, while simultaneously retaining the benefit of her earlier
protected pay and obtaining the benefit of seniority and promotion in the
cadre of Senior Clerk in Southern Railway. Such a position would be
inequitable and contrary to the applicable rules governing financial
upgradations.
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-12-
14. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is evident that
she was erroneously granted financial upgradations under the
ACP/MACP Schemes, resulting in excess payment of pay and
allowances. Upon detection of the error during verification of the service
records, the respondents rectified the mistake and adjusted the excess
amount from her retirement benefits, purportedly in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
15. With reference to the contention that promotions earned by
employees before their transfer on own request and placement at the
bottom of the seniority list in the initial recruitment grade should not be
reckoned for the purpose of ACP/MACP benefits merely because such
employees are no longer working in the promoted grade is misleading
and is, therefore, denied. It is submitted that, where an employee seeks
transfer on own request to a lower grade in another organisation, the
treatment of the promotion earned in the parent organisation must be
determined in accordance with the applicable transfer conditions and the
governing ACP/MACP provisions. In the present case, her earlier
promotion and the protection of her pay in the higher scale are material
considerations while determining her entitlement to financial
upgradations in the new organisation. Failure to take these circumstances
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-13-
into account would place her in a more advantageous position than an
employee who earned a promotion in the parent organisation and
continued to serve there, thereby resulting in an unintended disparity in
the grant of financial benefits. Since her transfer was effected at her own
request, she was placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the
corresponding initial recruitment grade. However, instead of refixing her
pay in the lower scale applicable to the post to which she was transferred,
she was allowed protection of the higher pay that she had been drawing
following her promotion as Senior Clerk in South Central Railway. It is,
therefore, submitted that she cannot claim that her earlier promotion in
the parent organisation should be wholly disregarded while determining
her entitlement to financial upgradations in Southern Railway,
particularly when the benefit of pay protection arising from her earlier
service was retained. Consequently, the applicant cannot claim an
unconditional entitlement to the benefits under Annexure A-1 without
examining her actual service history, the promotions earned before and
after transfer, and the applicable provisions of the ACP/MACP Schemes.
16. During verification of the applicant's service records, it was found
that the benefits granted under the ACP/MACP Schemes had been
incorrectly computed, resulting in the applicant receiving financial
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-14-
upgradation in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- instead of the admissible
Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. The respondents, therefore, contend that the
correction of the erroneous grant was necessary to ensure that the
applicant received only the financial benefits admissible under the
applicable scheme.
17. The contention that previously settled cases cannot be reopened is
not sustainable in the facts of the present case. The respondents submit
that a distinction must be drawn between cases in which an employee
initially appointed to a higher scale seeks appointment to a lower post on
own volition; and cases in which an employee earns a promotion in the
parent organisation and subsequently seeks transfer to a lower post in
another organisation on own request. In the former category, the
treatment of past service in the higher grade for the purpose of
determining entitlement to financial upgradation must be examined with
reference to the applicable scheme and the grade in which the employee
is appointed after transfer. In the latter category, although the past
service may be counted in accordance with the applicable provisions, the
promotion earned in the parent organisation must also be considered
while determining entitlement to financial upgradations in the new
organisation. Such a promotion may affect the employee's entitlement to
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-15-
the first financial upgradation, subject to the governing rules and transfer
conditions. In the present case, the third MACP was granted in the
Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- without properly accounting for the relevant
service history and the applicable conditions governing financial
upgradations. The respondents, therefore, contend that the withdrawal of
the erroneous benefit and correction of the excess payment were
justified.
18. It is submitted that Rule 15(4)(i)(b) of the Railway Services
(Pension) Rules, 1993, provides for the recovery of specified
Government dues, including overpayments of pay and allowances and
other dues, in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Rule 15(4)(ii)
deals with the recovery of such dues from retirement, death, terminal or
service gratuity, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The
respondents contend that the adjustment of the excess payment from the
applicant's retirement benefits was permissible under the aforesaid
provisions. The contention that no recovery can be made in the absence
of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the applicant is denied. In
Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2012 (8) SCC 417 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that excess payments made from
public funds cannot be treated as payments to which the recipient is
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-16-
automatically entitled merely because the recipient was not responsible
for the error. The respondents, therefore, submit that the absence of
fraud or misrepresentation, by itself, does not render every recovery of
excess payment impermissible. The applicant's entitlement to relief must
be determined in the light of the applicable rules and the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning recovery of excess
payments. The respondents submit that the principles laid down in Rafiq
Masih (supra) must be considered along with the subsequent and other
relevant judicial pronouncements, including the decision in Chandi
Prasad Uniyal (supra) , as well as the applicable provisions of the
Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
pleadings and documents available on record. The Railway Board's letter
dated 18.04.2016 provided that an employee who had been granted pay
protection on own-request inter-railway transfer between two divisions
would not be eligible for the benefits of the Modified Assured Career
Progression Scheme (MACPS). However, after the implementation of the
th
7 Central Pay Commission, the Railway Board issued consolidated
MACPS guidelines dated 22.10.2019, which specifically clarified that, in
cases of inter-railway transfer involving reversion to a lower grade, the
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-17-
service rendered in the previous cadre shall be counted for determining
eligibility under the MACPS and that such transfer shall not operate as a
bar for grant of MACPS. Consequently, the earlier instructions contained
in the Railway Board's letter dated 18.04.2016, to the extent they are
inconsistent with the consolidated guidelines dated 22.10.2019, stand
superseded and cannot be relied upon to deny MACPS benefits.
20. It is pertinent to note that, on own-request inter-railway transfer,
pay protection is granted only in respect of the employee's total
emoluments, while the Grade Pay is reduced to the Grade Pay applicable
to the lower post in the new division. In contrast, the MACPS provides
financial upgradation by granting the next higher Grade Pay where no
regular promotion has been received after 10, 20 or 30 years of service.
Therefore, the premise of the earlier Railway Board clarification was
flawed, as it treated pay protection as equivalent to financial upgradation,
even though the higher Grade Pay was not protected. In any event, this
issue has become academic in view of the consolidated MACPS
guidelines dated 22.10.2019, which clarify that such inter-railway
transfer does not bar eligibility for MACPS.
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-18-
21. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the issue is no
longer res integra and in a catena of decisions this Tribunal has
categorically held that the service rendered in the previous
organization/unit is required to be counted and that financial upgradation
under the ACP Scheme is to be granted in the promotional hierarchy
applicable in the new organization/division. This would entitle the
applicant to the first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme. The
learned counsel has also brought to notice a recent order of this Tribunal
in O.A.No.180/00077/2017 dated 27.07.2026 wherein in a similar
situation it was held as follows -
'8. The question to be answered over here is
whether the grant of the maximum of the lower pay scale
which is lower than the pay drawn in the previous post at
the time of inter-railway transfer at bottom seniority after
being reduced to the lower post amounts to pay
protection for denial of MACP? As far as the answer to
Question No.1 is concerned, it does not actually amount
to pay protection but there is a pay reduction. The
quantum of pay reduction may be marginal in this
particular instance but on the principle of it or on the
face of it, the employee has suffered a reduction in the
pay because he had already crossed the maximum of the
lower scale. It is a fact that the applicant has been
reverted to the lower post. Therefore, the question of
whether the promotion which has been revoked is to be
ignored or not has to be considered. Clearly the service
rendered earlier is to be reckoned for the purpose of
MACP. The question of whether the promotion granted
earlier, later revoked, but with the benefit of pay
protection because of the fact of Rule 15(a) resulted in a
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-19-
pay which was lower than the pay he was granted
amounts of pay protection. In result, the promotion in the
previous scale be included is a question which has to be
examined.
9. In O.A.No.629/2014 it has been held by the
Tribunal that the applicants did not get any benefit of pay
protection and as admitted by the respondents in the
counsel statement therein, their pay on reversion was
fixed at the maximum of the lower grade on the strength
of the regulations available and by virtue of the order of
this Tribunal in O.A.No.591/2014, the applicants have a
justifiable claim to the benefits sought for, thereby
holding that the applicant was eligible for financial
upgradations ignoring the promotion in the previous
cadre. The same position has been upheld by the Hon'ble
High Court of Kerala in O.P.(CAT) No.142/2017 and
O.P.(CAT) No.191/2018.
10. Respectfully following the decisions the conclusion
which has been drawn in the above orders is that the
promotion prior to her inter-railway transfer is to be
ignored for the purpose of MACP and since from the date
of appointment no promotion has been granted, the
st
applicant is, therefore, eligible for her 1 MACP with
effect from 01.09.2008 ie., the date on which the MACP
nd
Scheme was introduced, the 2 MACP shall be granted
on completion of 20 years of service ie., on 31.12.2011.
The factum of getting a promotion in the same scale in
rd
2012 ie., without fixation will not be a bar for grant of 3
MACP on completion of 30 years of service. It is held
accordingly. The respondents will undertake appropriate
pay fixation and grant arrears forthwith, in any case,
within a maximum period of three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. With the above directions, the O.A is disposed of.
No order as to costs.'
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-20-
22. We are in complete agreement with the above order. There are no
rd
grounds existing for denial of 3 financial upgradation under the MACP
Scheme to the applicant. Accordingly the O.A is disposed of. We quash
and set aside Annexure A-6 and Annexure A-18. The respondents are
directed to reimburse the withheld amount of Rs.347810/- from the
DCRG payable to her on retirement. They are further directed to refix
the pay and pension in the light of the aforesaid direction and arrears
flowing therefrom shall be paid to her within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which interest at
the rate of 8% shall be payable. However, arrears, if any, payable will be
restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the O.A
in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of
India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648. No order as to costs.
th
(Dated this the 28 day of October, 2026)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-21-
List of Annexures in O.A.No.18 0 /00308/2021
1. Annexure A-1 – A copy of the clarification issued by the Ministry
of Railways dated 04.10.2002 bearing No.PC/V/2002/1/1/1/7 SR.
2. Annexure A-2 – A copy of the Office Order bearing No.6 of
nd
2001/WP issued by the 2 respondent dated 23.01.2001.
3. Annexure A-3 – A copy of the Office Order No.153/04/WP dated
th
09.12.2004 issued by the 4 respondent.
4. Annexure A-4 – A copy of the Order No.47/2011/WP dated
05.03.2011 issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer to the
applicant.
5. Annexure A-5 – A copy of the Pension Payment Order of the
applicant issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern
Railway, Thiruvananthapuram.
6. Annexure A-6 – A copy of the communication bearing
th
No.V/P.535/1/MACP/Vol.III(Pt.) dated 10.08.2020 issued by the 4
respondent.
7. Annexure A-7 – A copy of the bill and check details issued by the
Southern Railway in respect of the settlement of dues of the applicant
dated 18.08.2021.
8. Annexure A-8 – A copy of the Pension Payment Order issued by
nd
the 2 respondent dated 19.08.2020.
9. Annexure A-9 – A copy of the directive issued by the Railway
Board RBE dated 10.06.2009 No.RBE 101/2009.
10. Annexure A-10 – A copy of the representation dated 01.07.2020
th
submitted by applicant before the 4 respondent.
11. Annexure A-11 – A copy of the representation dated 19.08.2020
nd
submitted by the applicant before the 2 respondent.
12. Annexure A-12 – A copy of the representation dated 24.10.2020
nd
submitted by the applicant before the 2 respondent.
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'

-22-
13. Annexure A-13 – A copy of the postal acknowledgement dated
nd
27.10.2020 evidencing the receipt of Annexure A-15 by the 2
respondent.
14. Annexure A-14 – A copy of the Office Memorandum dated
02.03.2016 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personal,
Public Grievances and Pension Department bearing No.F.No.18/03/2015
Estt.(Pay-1).
15. Annexure A-15 – A copy of the representation dated 07.12.2020
th
submitted by the applicant before the 4 respondent.
16. Annexure A-16 – A copy of the postal acknowledgement dated
th
16.12.2020 evidencing the receipt of Annexure A-15 by the 4
respondent.
17. Annexure A-17 – A copy of the Office Circular bearing No.RBE
72/2016 dated 22.06.2016.
18. Annexure A-18 – A copy of the communication dated 25.03.2021
bearing No.V/P.535/1/MACP/Vol.III(Pt.) issued by the Additional
Divisional Railway Manager, Thiruvananthapuram.
_______________________________
A S Peethambaran 2026.10.28 15:42:53+05'30'