Excess pay arising from non-qualifying absence is recoverable from railway gratuity under Rule 15.

The applicant, a retired Railway employee, challenged the respondents’ correction of his pay fixation and recovery of ₹13,55,245 from his gratuity as alleged excess payment.

He sought to quash the pay-amendment memo dated 28 June 2024 and notice dated 21 August 2024, and to obtain a refund.

The respondents stated that the applicant had been absent for a total of 2,573 days, including periods treated as Leave Without Pay or otherwise non-qualifying for increments.

They contended that those periods had not been properly accounted for when his increments and pay were fixed, resulting in excess payment.

The respondents said they recalculated his pay after examining his service and leave records, gave him notice and an opportunity to object, and recovered the amount under Rule 15 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

The applicant relied on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and relevant Railway Board instructions, and maintained that he had neither caused nor misrepresented the original pay fixation.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in revising the applicant’s pay fixation after accounting for his Leave Without Pay and other non-qualifying periods.

2. Whether recovery of the alleged excess payment from the applicant’s gratuity was impermissible under Rafiq Masih or otherwise unlawful.

3. Whether the applicant established that the revised calculation or the recovery was factually or legally defective.

Rule 15 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 requires the assessment of Railway or Government dues outstanding at retirement and permits adjustment against retirement gratuity; the definition of such dues includes overpayment of pay and allowances.

The Tribunal also considered State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), which restricts recovery of mistaken payments in specified circumstances where recovery would be inequitable or impermissible, but does not provide blanket protection where employee fraud or misrepresentation is evident.

The Tribunal treated notice and an opportunity to object as relevant to procedural fairness.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ explanation that the excess payment resulted from increments being regulated without properly accounting for the applicant’s lengthy absence, Leave Without Pay and other non-qualifying periods.

It found that the applicant had been notified of the proposed refixation and given an opportunity to object, and therefore rejected his claim that recovery was made without due process.

It distinguished Rafiq Masih, reasoning that the applicant’s omission to disclose or point out his lengthy unauthorized absence amounted to misrepresentation and that the case was not one in which recovery was barred by that precedent.

The Tribunal further held that Rule 15 covered the alleged overpayment and that the applicant had not provided an independent calculation or other material showing that the revised amount was incorrect.

It declined to quash the notice and pay-amendment memo or order repayment of ₹13,55,245, and dismissed the Original Application without an order as to costs.