### Recovery after 24 years and denial of 'Leave Not Due' for medical absence are legally unsustainable.

The applicant, a retired Loco Pilot, remained absent from duty due to sickness from 12.11.1996 to 10.06.1997

During that period, he was granted full pay for some segments, while other segments were marked as leave without pay; however, he was mistakenly paid full salary and granted regular increments for the entire duration

Twenty-four years later, on 30.03.2021, the respondents revised his salary, withdrew the increments, and initiated a recovery of ₹3,48,389 from his retiral benefits

The applicant’s representation to convert the "leave without pay" into "leave not due" was rejected via communication dated 12.05.2022 on the grounds of delay

1. Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the applicant's request to convert "leave without pay" to "leave not due" under the Indian Railway Establishment Code

2. Whether the recovery of ₹3,48,389 after a period of 24 years was legally sustainable

Para 528 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC) Vol. I, which provides that "leave not due" (up to a maximum of 360 days) may be granted during the entire service period on the basis of a medical certificate

Principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), which prohibits certain types of recoveries from retired employees or those due to retire, especially when the recovery is initiated after a long lapse of time

The Tribunal observed that the respondents’ leave records were inconsistent, as parts of the same sickness period had already been sanctioned as leave with pay

It held that since the applicant’s absence was admittedly due to medical illness, he was entitled to consideration for "leave not due" under Para 528 of IREC, and the respondents failed to provide valid reasons for not granting it

The Tribunal further reasoned that re-opening a 24-year-old matter to withdraw increments and initiate recovery was arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down in Rafiq Masih, particularly because the applicant was not at fault for the original salary calculations

It directed the respondents to re-examine the service record, sanction "leave not due" on medical grounds for the disputed period (to be adjusted against leave encashment if necessary), and refund the recovered amount of ₹3,48,389 to the applicant within three months, failing which the applicant is entitled to 6% interest on the outstanding amount