An employee prevented from joining duty despite being ready to work is entitled to intervening wages.

Deepak Kumar, a Railway Technician-I, challenged his transfer from Mughalsarai to Gaya.

The Tribunal quashed the transfer on 5 December 2019 and directed the respondents to permit him to rejoin at Mughalsarai within one month; its order stated that he would not be entitled to pay and allowances for any period he remained absent from duty.

The respondents did not permit him to rejoin until 28 November 2020, after contempt proceedings had been initiated.

Kumar sought pay and allowances for 6 January to 28 November 2020 and a refund of Rs. 41,187 recovered from his December 2020 salary as alleged overpayment.

The respondents disputed his entitlement to back pay and stated that the recovery related to the pay-bill section.

Whether Kumar was entitled to pay and allowances for the period from 6 January to 28 November 2020, when he claimed he was willing to rejoin but the respondents did not permit him to do so.

Whether the recovery of Rs. 41,187 from Kumar’s salary was lawful in the absence of notice and a reasoned decision.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for an application before the Tribunal.

Under Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, arrears of salary do not follow automatically from consequential service relief; entitlement depends on the circumstances of the case, and a decision denying arrears must be reasoned.

The Tribunal also referred to the DoPT instructions dated 6 February 2014, which call for notice, an opportunity to represent, and a speaking order before recovery of alleged excess payments, and to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, which identifies circumstances in which recovery may be impermissible.

These principles require recovery decisions to follow fair procedure and to account for the circumstances of the employee’s case.

The Tribunal found that the earlier order quashing the transfer had not been stayed, and that Kumar had repeatedly sought permission to rejoin.

Because the respondents failed to allow him to resume duty within the time directed, the Tribunal treated the period of non-attendance as attributable to the respondents rather than as a basis to deny pay; it therefore distinguished the earlier order’s exclusion of pay for periods when Kumar remained absent.

As to the recovery, the respondents had not issued a show-cause notice explaining the alleged overpayment or afforded Kumar an opportunity to respond before making the deduction.

The Tribunal held that this failure to follow the required procedure rendered the recovery unlawful.

It directed the respondents to pay Kumar his pay and allowances for 6 January to 28 November 2020 within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order, failing which GPF-rate interest would apply.

It also ordered a refund of the Rs. 41,187 recovered from his December 2020 salary within the same period, with GPF-rate interest for delay.

Any further recovery was to comply with the applicable law.

No order as to costs was made.