RAJ KUMAR SAIN vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

1
Reserved on 25.08.2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
st
This is the 01 day of September, 2026.
Original Application No. 330/00454 of 2025

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE OM PRAKASH-VII,MEMBER (J)

Raj Kumar Sain aged about 56 years, son of Kajor Sain, Resident of
154 Nehru Nagar Mungaska, Alwar, P.O. Alwar, District Alwar
Rajasthan 301001, presently residing at Near Railway Colony, North
Central Railway, Agra District Agra, Uttar Pradesh
.Applicant

By Adv: Shri Shiv Mangal Prajapati

VE RS U S
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Central
Railway, Head Quarter Office, Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway,
Agra Division, Agra.
3. The Divisional Finance Manager, North Central Railway Agra
Division, Agra.
4. The Assistant Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Agra
Division, Agra.
. . .Respondents
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
By Adv: Shri K.K. Ojha

(O R D ER)

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant
under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking
following reliefs:-
“(i) To issue an order or direction commanding the respondents that they
may not deduct Rs. 197317/- from the pension of applicant and also
quashed the order dated 3.4.2025 passed by the Assistant Personnel
Officer, North Central Railway, Agra for recovery of aforesaid amount
and further they be directed that of any deduction was made they may be

2
refunded the same to applicant to the date of deduction with 12% interest
otherwise the applicant will suffer an irreparable loss and injury.
(ii) To issue any other and further relief which this Hon’ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper be also awarded to the applicant.
(iii) Cost of proceeding be awarded to the applicant”.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The applicant was appointed as an Apprentice Assistant Driver
with effect from 03.12.1992. He was promoted to the post of Loco Pilot
Goods with effect from 05.06.2006. Thereafter, he was promoted as
Loco Pilot Passenger on 17.07.2012 and subsequently as Loco Pilot
Mail on 31.12.2017. The applicant applied for voluntary retirement,
which was accepted by the respondents and he retired from service with
effect from 30.04.2024. After his retirement, the respondents issued a
letter dated 03.04.2025 directing the applicant to deposit a sum of
Rs.1,97,317/- on the ground that excess payment had been made to him.
The respondents further stated that, if the amount was not deposited, the
same would be recovered from his pension. Aggrieved by the impugned
letter/order dated 03.04.2025 directing recovery of Rs.1,97,317/- from
him after his retirement, the applicant has filed the present Original
Application.
3. Per contra, the official respondents have filed their counter
affidavit contending therein that the applicant was working as Chief
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
Loco Inspector in the Railway Department and took voluntary
retirement from service with effect from 30.04.2024. At the time of his
retirement, due to a clerical error, his pensionary benefits were
calculated by taking 30% of the pay element. Accordingly, PPO No.
20247320400093 dated 18.06.2024 was issued. As per the Railway
Board’s letters dated 25.11.1992, 13.11.2017 and 06.03.2019, the
applicant had completed 7 years of service as Chief Loco Inspector.
Therefore, his pensionary benefits were required to be calculated by
taking 21% of the pay element and not 30%. Accordingly, the earlier
PPO was revised and the applicant’s pensionary benefits were correctly
calculated by taking 21% of the pay element. Since the applicant had

3
already received pensionary benefits on the basis of the earlier PPO, an
excess amount of Rs.1,97,317/- was paid to him. The applicant was
therefore directed, vide letter dated 03.04.2025, to deposit the excess
amount of Rs.1,97,317/-. The said amount was sought to be recovered
as it had been paid due to an error in calculating the pensionary
benefits. Thus, the respondents submit that the recovery is only of the
excess amount wrongly paid to the applicant and the impugned action
has been taken in accordance with the applicable Railway Board
instructions. Therefore, the present Original Application is liable to be
dismissed.
4. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant.
5. I have heard Shri Shiv Mangal Prajapati, learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents and
perused the records.
6. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the
impugned order dated 03.04.2025 is illegal and arbitrary, as the
applicant had already retired from service on 30.04.2024 and the
recovery was ordered after his retirement. He further submitted that the
applicant was a Group ‘C’ employee and the alleged excess payment
was not made due to any fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of
facts on his part. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that
the alleged excess payment was made due to a mistake or clerical error
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
on the part of the respondents while calculating the pensionary benefits
of the applicant, and the applicant had no role in calculating or fixing
his pension. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 , has observed
that recovery of excess payment from retired employees and employees
belonging to Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ is generally impermissible,
particularly where the excess payment was not made due to any fraud
or misrepresentation on the part of the employee. According to him, the
case of the applicant is squarely covered by the principles laid down in
Rafiq Masih (supra), as he is a retired Group ‘C’ employee and there is

4
no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against him. Learned
counsel for the applicant further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and Others, (2022) 5
SCC 470 , has also observed that recovery of excess payment caused by
a mistake of the department should not be made from an employee
where there was no misrepresentation or fraud on his part and such
recovery would cause hardship. He submitted that the respondents
cannot recover the alleged excess amount merely because they
subsequently found that the pension had been wrongly calculated. The
mistake was committed by the respondents themselves while issuing the
PPO. He next submitted that the respondents have not produced any
material to show that the applicant was responsible for the alleged
excess payment or that he had knowledge that the amount paid to him
was in excess. He further submitted that the respondents did not provide
the applicant with a proper opportunity to explain his case before
directing recovery from his pension. Therefore, the impugned action is
also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for
the applicant also contended that the Railway Board instructions relied
upon by the respondents may justify correction of the pensionary
benefits for the future, but they cannot, by themselves, justify recovery
of the amount already paid to a retired Group ‘C’ employee when there
was no fraud or misrepresentation on his part. Therefore, learned
counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated
03.04.2025 directing recovery of Rs.1,97,317/- is illegal, arbitrary and
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
contrary to the settled law. He, therefore, prayed that the respondents be
restrained from recovering the said amount from the pension of the
applicant and, if any amount has already been recovered, the same be
refunded to the applicant.
7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the
present Original Application is liable to be dismissed, as the
respondents have only sought to recover the excess amount wrongly
paid to the applicant. He further submitted that the applicant’s
pensionary benefits were wrongly calculated at 30% of the pay element
due to a clerical error at the time of his retirement. As per the applicable
Railway Board instructions dated 25.11.1992, 13.11.2017 and

5
06.03.2019, the applicant was entitled to pensionary benefits calculated
by taking 21% of the pay element. The applicant had completed the
required period of service as Chief Loco Inspector and, therefore, his
pensionary benefits were required to be calculated on the basis of 21%
pay element and not 30%. Learned counsel for the respondents further
submitted that the earlier PPO contained an error, which was
subsequently corrected by issuing a revised PPO. Due to the wrong
calculation in the earlier PPO, the applicant received an excess amount
of Rs.1,97,317/-. The respondents are entitled to recover the amount
which was paid to the applicant in excess of his lawful entitlement. He
further argued that the recovery is not by way of punishment, but is
only for recovery of public money which was wrongly paid to the
applicant. The respondents are under a duty to protect public money
and to make payment only in accordance with the applicable rules. The
applicant has no vested right to retain an amount which was not legally
payable to him. Correction of the pension calculation does not amount
to any penalty against the applicant. Learned counsel for the
respondents further submitted that the judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra)
is not an absolute bar against every recovery of excess payment and that
the facts and circumstances of each case have to be considered. He
further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High
Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267
and submitted that where an employee has given an undertaking to
refund any excess amount paid to him, recovery of such amount is
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
legally permissible. He submitted that the principle laid down in Rafiq
Masih (supra) cannot be applied where the employee has specifically
undertaken to refund any excess payment. The respondents further
submitted that the letter dated 03.04.2025 was issued to give the
applicant an opportunity to deposit the excess amount voluntarily. The
applicant was informed that, if the amount was not deposited, the same
would be recovered from his pension. Learned counsel for the
respondents lastly submitted that the respondents have acted in
accordance with the applicable Railway Board instructions and have
corrected the pensionary benefits according to the applicant’s actual
entitlement. Therefore, there is no illegality in revising the pensionary

6
benefits and seeking recovery of the excess amount of Rs.1,97,317/-.
The present Original Application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material
available on record.
9. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the
respondents can recover the alleged excess amount of Rs.1,97,317/-
from the applicant paid to him in excess in lieu of pension, when the
excess payment was admittedly made due to a clerical error in
calculating his pensionary benefits and there is no allegation of fraud,
misrepresentation or concealment of facts on the part of the applicant.
10. It is not in dispute that the applicant retired from service on
30.04.2024 and the impugned order for recovery was issued on
03.04.2025, i.e. after his retirement. It is also not in dispute that the
applicant belongs to Group ‘C’ service. The respondents themselves
have stated that the excess payment was made due to a clerical error in
calculating his pensionary benefits. Thus, there is no allegation that the
applicant had played any role in the alleged wrong calculation or had
made any misrepresentation for obtaining the said benefit.
11 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra)
has held as under:-
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
”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.

7
(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”.
12 The same principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Thomas Daniel (supra) . The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that
“(9) This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess
amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the
employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a
wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular
interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such
excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief
against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in
equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the
hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court has further
held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the
payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases
where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the
matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and
circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess.
(10) In Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Others1 this Court restrained
recovery of payment which was given under the upgraded pay scale on account
of wrong construction of relevant order by the authority concerned, without any
misrepresentation on part of the employees. It was held thus :
“5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational
qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be
entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the
relaxation. Since the date of relaxation, the appellant had been paid his
salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any
misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher
pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the
Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault.
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the
appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales
prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly
without any order as to costs.”
(11) In Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India and Others2 this Court
considered an identical question as under:
“27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be
granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of
the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 76 1999.
This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess
wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the
following conditions are fulfilled:

(a) The excess payment was not made on account of any
misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee.

8

(b)Such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong
principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a
particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be
erroneous.”

In the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court further observed as under:-

“18. 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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarize the
following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be
impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or
Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire
within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the 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.”
13. From the perusal of aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Supreme
Court, it is clear that recovery of excess payment is not permissible
when it appears that recovery if permitted it would be iniquitous or
harsh or arbitrary. Applicant is retired Government servant and
receiving pension. Excess payment said to have been made to the
applicant would have been spent. If recovery is permitted then also
applicant will get very less amount till recovery for his expenses which
will be detrimental to the applicant. It is also clear that excess payment
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
was made due to a mistake or wrong calculation by the employer and
there was no fraud, misrepresentation or concealment on the part of the
employee. In the present case, the alleged excess payment was made
due to a clerical error of the respondents while calculating the
applicant’s pensionary benefits and there is nothing on record to show
that the applicant had played any role in the said error or had
knowledge that the payment made to him was in excess. Therefore, the
case of the applicant is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) and Thomas Daniel
(supra) cases. The recovery of Rs.1,97,317/- from the applicant would

9
cause undue hardship and would be inequitable. Accordingly, the
respondents cannot recover the said amount from the applicant.
14. The respondents have relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh (supra) wherein it has been held as
under:-
“The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed, by its judgment dated 1
August 2005, a petition filed by the Respondent under Article 226 of the
Constitution to challenge a direction issued by the State to the Accountant
General for the recovery of an excess payment towards salary.
2 The facts lie in a narrow compass. The Respondent was appointed as a Civil
Judge (Junior Division) on 16 July 1987 and was promoted as Additional Civil
Judge on 28 August 1997 in the judicial service of the State. By a notification
dated 28 September 2001, a pay scale of Rs. 10000-325-15200 (senior scale) was
allowed under the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and Haryana
Superior Judicial Service Revised Pay Rules 2001. Under the rules, each officer
was required to submit an undertaking that any excess which may be found to
have been paid will be refunded to the Government either by adjustment against
future payments due or otherwise.
3 The Respondent furnished an undertaking and was granted the revised pay
scale and selection grade of Rs. 14300-400-18000-300. While opting for the
revised pay scale, the Respondent undertook to refund any excess payment if it
was so detected and demanded subsequently. The revised pay scale in the
selection grade was allowed to the Respondent on 7 January 2002.
4 The Respondent was placed under suspension on 19 August 2002 and
eventually, was compulsorily retired from service on 12 February 2003.
5 In the meantime, this Court in Civil Writ (C) 1022 of 1989 accepted the
recommendations of the First National Judicial Pay Commission (Shetty
Commission). Thereupon, the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) and
Haryana Superior Judicial Service Revised Pay Rules 2003 were notified on 7
May 2003.
6 In view thereof the pay scales of judicial officers in Haryana were once again
revised with effect from 1 January 1996. An exercise was undertaken for
adjustment of excess payments made to judicial officers, following the
notification of the revised pay rules. On 18 February 2004, a letter for the
recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,22,003/- was served upon the Respondent
pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of the High Court.
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
7 The Respondent challenged the action for recovery in writ proceedings
under Article 226. The petition was allowed by the impugned judgment of the
High Court. The High Court found substance in the grievance of the Respondent
that the excess payment made to him towards salary and allowance prior to his
retirement could not be recovered at that stage, there being no fraud or
misrepresentation on his part.
8 The order of the High Court has been challenged in these proceedings. From
the record of the proceedings, it is evident that when the Respondent opted for
the revised pay scale, he furnished an undertaking to the effect that he would be
liable to refund any excess payment made to him. In the counter affidavit which
has been filed by the Respondent in these proceedings, this position has been
specifically [1]admitted. Subsequently, when the rules were revised and notified
on 7 May 2003 it was found that a payment in excess had been made to the
Respondent. On 18 February 2004, the excess payment was sought to be
recovered in terms of the undertaking.

10
9 The submission of the Respondent, which found favour with the High Court,
was that a payment which has been made in excess cannot be recovered from an
employee who has retired from the service of the state. This, in our view, will
have no application to a situation such as the present where an undertaking was
specifically furnished by the officer at the time when his pay was initially revised
accepting that any payment found to have been made in excess would be liable to
be adjusted. While opting for the benefit of the revised pay scale, the Respondent
was clearly on notice of the fact that a future re-fixation or revision may warrant
an adjustment of the excess payment, if any, made.
10 In State of Punjab & Ors etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc1. this Court
held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where
payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations,
a recovery by the employer 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.” (emphasis supplied).
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.
12 For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court which set aside the action
for recovery is unsustainable. However, we are of the view that the recovery
should be made in reasonable instalments. We direct that the recovery be made
in equated monthly instalments spread over a period of two years.
13 The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The Civil Appeal
shall stand allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs”.
MANISH KUMAR
15. In the case of Jagdev Singh (supra), the employee had given a
SRIVASTAVA
specific undertaking, at the time of opting for the revised pay scale, that
any excess payment made to him would be refunded to the
Government. He was also a Group ‘A’/’B’ officer. Thus, no benefit
could be extended to the respondents on the basis of Jagdev Singh
(supra) case.
16. The submission of the respondents that public money cannot be
allowed to remain with a person who was not legally entitled to receive
it cannot be accepted in isolation. No doubt, the Government has a right
and duty to protect public money. However, such right is subject to the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding recovery of

11
excess payment. The right of recovery has to be balanced with the
principles of equity, fairness and undue hardship.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal is of the
considered view that recovery of Rs.1,97,317/- from the applicant
cannot be sustained. The impugned letter/order dated 03.04.2025 is,
therefore, liable to be quashed to the extent it directs recovery of the
said amount from the applicant.
18. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed and the
impugned letter/order dated 03.04.2025 is hereby quashed. The
respondents are restrained from recovering the said amount from the
pension or pensionary benefits of the applicant. If any amount has
already been recovered from the applicant pursuant to the impugned
order, the respondents shall refund the same within a period of three
months. In case the amount is not refunded within the aforesaid period,
the applicant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum
simple interest on the said amount from the date of expiry of the three
month period till the date of actual payment. However, the respondents
shall be at liberty to examine the circumstances in which the excess
payment was made. If the records show that the excess payment was
made due to any clerical or administrative error on the part of any
dealing official/officer, the respondents may fix responsibility and take
appropriate action against the person(s) responsible, strictly in
accordance with law and after following the prescribed procedure.
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Misc. Applications, if
any, stand disposed of.

(Justice Om Prakash-VII)
Member (J)

Manish/-