Alpana Tantubai vs S E Railway

1 o.a. 350.00874.2021

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA

No. O.A. 350/00874/2021 Heard on 01.07.2026
Date of order: 24.08.2026

Present : Hon’ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member

Smt. Alpana Tantubai, wife of late Shivnath
Tantubai, aged about 47 years, Ex-ASM, Gonda
Bihar, Ranchi Division of South Eastern Railway,
residing at Gopalganj Baruipara, Bisnupur,
Bankura, PO-Bishnupur, District-Bankura, Pin-
722122.

…….. Applicant.

- V E R S U S –

1) Union of India, service through the General

Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata-43.

2) Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Ranchi
Division, S.E. Railway, P.O.+P.S.- Ranchi, Dist.
Ranchi, Jharkhand.

3) The Divisional Finance Manager (CO), S.E.
Railway, Ranchi-843003.

4) Bank of India, Centralised Pension Processing
Center, CPCC, Nagpur-440001

……. Respondents.

For the Applicant : Mr. A. Chakraborty, Counsel
Ms. P. Mondal, Counsel
Mr. Argha Chakraborty, Counsel

For the Respondents : Mr. R. Halder, Counsel
Mr. S.K. Mitra, Counsel
Mr. A. Sinha, Counsel
Mr. S. Chakraborty, Counsel


Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Department of
Personnel and Training, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b65
DhanuRam 05515, PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a 70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda
Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.09.02 16:07:50+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Hansda

2 o.a. 350.00874.2021

O R D E R

In accordance with the order of the Hon’ble Chairman, Central
Administrative Tribunal, dated 10.09.2021 issued under Sub -Section (6) of
Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, this matter can be taken
up by a Bench consisting of a single member. Accordingly, this matter is taken
up for disposal by this Single Bench.
2. The applicant has filed this Original Application, seeking the
following relief(s):
“ i) An Order do issue directing the respondents to grant Rs. 9,570 with applicable
DA in favour of the applicant towards full family pension with effect from 27.2.17
and to grant arrears with interest as admissible under the Rules.

ii) An Order do issue directing the respondent not to recover any amount from the
Dearness relief on Pension and to refund the amount already recovered.”

Facts of the case
3. The husband of the applicant late Shivnath Tantubai, an employee of
the Eastern Railway, had expired on 08.02.2006 while he was in service. Late
Shivnath Tantubai had earlier married one Ms. Jaya Tantubai who had expired
on 14.12.1991 leaving behind two unmarried daughters namely Sangita
Tantubai and Sunita Tantabai. After demise of his first wife, the deceased
Railway employee Shri Shivnath Tantubai had married Smt. Alpana Tantubai
(applicant herein) on 12.03.1994 and has an unmarried daughter namely Ms.
Anita Tantubai out of this wedlock.
4. After the demise of Late Shivnath Tantubai, family pension was paid to
the applicant, Smt. Alpana Tantubai and Ms. Sangita Tantubai who was eldest
Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Department of
Personnel and Training, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b65
DhanuRam 05515, PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a 70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda
Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.09.02 16:07:50+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Hansda

3 o.a. 350.00874.2021

on surviving unmarried daughter of his first wife in equal proportion @ Rs.
3025/- each as enhanced family pension with applicable dearness relief w.e.f.
09.02.2006 to 08.02.2016 vide PPO No. 07/41403/00068 dated 09.02.2012
and PPO No. 07/41403/00069 dated 09.02.2012 respectively (Annexure R/1 A
& B) .
5. The eldest unmarried daughter of first wife of deceased employee was
subsequently appointed on the compassionate ground in Railway service on
01.12.2007 and consequently her share of family pension was discontinued
and her share of enhanced family pension was sanctioned in favour of her
younger sister Sunita Tantubai w.e.f. 03.12.2007 vide PPO No. 07140027906
dated 14.03.2013 (Annexure R/2) .
6. After 08.02.2016, the enhanced family pension granted to the above
persons was reduced to Rs. 1815/- as normal family pension with applicable
dearness relief and the same was revised consequently upon the
th
implementation of the recommendation 7 CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2016 @ Rs.
7975/- each up to 08.02.2016 and thereafter was converted into normal family
pension @ Rs. 4785/- each with applicable dearness relief w.e.f. 09.02.2016.
7. The younger daughter of the first wife of late Shiv Nath Tantubai namely
Sunita Tantubai got married on 26.02.2019. Thereafter, the applicant, Ms.
Alpana Tantubai had represented that following the marriage of Sunita
Tantubai, full family pension be sanctioned in favour of her. Both the
pensioner were advised by the respondents to surrender their old PPOs so
that full family pension can be sanctioned in favour of the applicant and both
Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Department of
Personnel and Training, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b65
DhanuRam 05515, PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a 70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda
Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.09.02 16:07:50+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Hansda

4 o.a. 350.00874.2021

of them surrendered their PPOs. Meanwhile, the respondents Bank namely
Bank of India, Nagpur had detected that excess family pension of Rs.
4,42,258/- had been paid to Smt. Alpana Tantubai and Rs. 3,60,927/- had been
paid to Ms. Sunita Tantubai respectively (Annexure R/4) . Accordingly,
recovery notice was issued to both Ms Sunita Tantubai and the Smt. Alpana
Tantubai (the applicant herein) for recovery excess amount of family pension
paid to both the pensioners.
8. Ms. Sunita Tantubai deposited a sum of Rs. 2,43,255/- to the Bank on
17.08.2020 on account of the excess amount paid to her. The same was
accepted by the Bank. On the other hand, the applicant, Smt. Alpana Tantubai
did not agree to pay back the excess amount towards family pension to the
Bank of India.
9. When the matter was heard on 06.08.2025 respondent No. 4 i.e. Bank
of India, Centralised Pension Processing Centre, Nagpur, was not represented
and this Tribunal had directed the said Bank restrained from making any

further recovery from the family pension of the applicant.
At Hearing
10. Heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and considered the material on
record.
11. At hearing, Ld. Counsel for the applicant reiterated the averments made
by the applicant in the pleadings and submitted that recovery from pensioner
was impermissible in the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih .
Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Department of
Personnel and Training, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b65
DhanuRam 05515, PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a 70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda
Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.09.02 16:07:50+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Hansda

5 o.a. 350.00874.2021

12. At hearing, Ld. Counsel for the Railway respondents while reiterating
the averments made by them in their reply to the O.A. submitted that the
applicant, Ms. Alpana Tantubai had been paid an excess amount of Rs.
4,42,258/- to as family pension by the Bank and that she was not entitled to
the said amount. He further submitted that the Senior Divisional Finance
Manager, South Eastern Railway, vide letter dated 25.06.2020 had advised the
Chief Manager, Bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing Centre, Nagpur
to recover the excess amount of Rs. 4,42,258/- from the applicant and the
Bank had accordingly started to recovery of the said amount.
13. At hearing, Ld. Counsel for the Bank of India, Centralized Pension
Processing Centre, Nagpur submitted that in view of mistake on the part of
Bank authorities excess amount of Rs. 4,42,258/- paid to the applicant and
that the Bank is entitled to recover such excess amount. He further submitted
that the applicant is being paid family pension regularly as per her entitlement
and only the excess amount has been sought to be recovered from her.
14. Ld. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that judgement in
the case of Rafiq Masih & Ors. (State of Punjab) which has been relied upon by
the applicant, is not applicable in the instant case since the instant case does
not pertain to reduction of pension or reduction of salary in the case of
applicant but only pertains to recovery of excess amount paid by the Bank to
the applicant. He further submitted that as the applicant is contractually
bound to accept only the correct amount due to her and is required to refund
any amount received over and above the amount to which she is entitled to.
Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Department of
Personnel and Training, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b65
DhanuRam 05515, PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a 70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda
Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.09.02 16:07:50+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Hansda

6 o.a. 350.00874.2021

Discussion & Findings
15. An extract from the judgement in the case of Rafiq Masih Vs. State of
Punjab is reproduced below:
12. 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. ”

16. The instant case can be distinguished from the case of Rafiq Masih
(supra). I am of the opinion that the judgement of Rafiq Masih (supra) is not
applicable to the instant case since the said judgement is only applicable in
case of recovery ordered by Government Departments. In the instant case
excess amount of Rs. 4,42,258/- has been paid by the Bank of India to the
applicant due to an error on their part.
17. The applicant has not on her own volition refunded the excess amount
of Rs. 4,42,258/- paid to her by the Bank of India to the said Bank. I am of the
Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Department of
Personnel and Training, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b65
DhanuRam 05515, PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a 70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda
Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.09.02 16:07:50+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Hansda

7 o.a. 350.00874.2021

opinion that the Bank is therefore at liberty to recover the above sum from
the family pension paid to her.
19. With the above observations and directions, the instant O.A. is
dismissed without any order as to cost.

(Anindo Majumdar)
Administrative Member
drh



Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Department of
Personnel and Training, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b65
DhanuRam 05515, PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a 70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda
Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.09.02 16:07:50+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Hansda