Absent fraud or misrepresentation, excess-pay recovery from a deceased Group-C employee’s DCRG is impermissible.

The applicant, Manju Devi, was the widow of Late Nand Kishore, a Technician Grade-I employed with the North Central Railway.

During disciplinary proceedings, Nand Kishore was removed from service; the appellate authority modified the order to removal with entitlement to two-thirds pensionary and gratuity benefits.

Following litigation before the Tribunal and the High Court, the applicant was granted retiral benefits.

By Revised PPO dated 21 August 2024, the respondents recovered Rs.1,90,455 from the deceased employee’s DCRG—Rs.1,60,455 towards alleged excess payment of wages and Rs.30,000 towards RELHS dues.

The respondents attributed the alleged overpayment to revision of pay following a period of long or unauthorized absence and relied on Para 15(4)(I)(B) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

The applicant contended that the recovery was made without notice, hearing, fraud, or misrepresentation, and that the underlying period of absence had already been quashed by the Tribunal.

Whether recovery of Rs.1,60,455 towards alleged excess payment of wages from the deceased Group-C employee’s DCRG was permissible in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, particularly when the recovery was made after his death?

Whether the separate recovery of Rs.30,000 towards RELHS dues was legally sustainable?

Whether the applicant was entitled to refund of the recoverable amount with interest?

The Tribunal applied the principles governing recovery of excess payments laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, particularly that recovery is generally impermissible from Group-C and Group-D employees, retired employees, and in cases where recovery would be harsh, inequitable, or arbitrary.

It also relied on Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475, which holds that, absent fraud or misrepresentation by the employee, recovery of excess payments resulting from the employer’s error may cause undue hardship and should ordinarily not be permitted.

The Tribunal additionally considered Para 15(4)(I)(B) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, governing recovery from pensionary benefits, but held that the provision could not sustain an otherwise arbitrary recovery.

The Tribunal also relied on its earlier decision in O.A. No. 335 of 2011, decided on 20 January 2023.

The Tribunal found that the alleged excess payment arose from departmental revision or fixation of the deceased employee’s pay under the Sixth Central Pay Commission, and not from fraud or misrepresentation on his part.

The respondents’ stated basis for revising the pay—the treatment of 40 days’ absence as unauthorized—had already been interfered with by the Tribunal.

Since Nand Kishore was a Group-C employee, the payment had been made during his service, and the recovery was effected only after his death from his DCRG, the safeguards and equitable principles in Rafiq Masih applied.

The Tribunal held that reliance on Para 15(4)(I)(B) could not validate recovery based on an erroneous pay calculation and unsupported by any finding of employee misconduct.

However, with respect to Rs.30,000 recovered as RELHS dues, the applicant produced insufficient material to disprove its recoverability; that component was therefore left undisturbed.

The Revised PPO dated 21 August 2024 was quashed to the extent it authorized recovery of Rs.1,60,455 towards alleged excess payment of wages.

The competent authority was directed to refund that amount to the applicant within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order, together with simple interest at 6% per annum.

The recovery of Rs.30,000 towards RELHS dues was upheld.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.