Recovery from retired employee upheld despite No-Dues Certificate due to non-adjustment of official funds.

The applicant, D. Shankar Narayanan, retired as Chief Office Superintendent from South Western Railway on September 30, 2020.

At the time of his superannuation, "No-Dues Certificates" (Annexure – A1 and A2) were issued.

Subsequently, his DCRG (Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity) was withheld, and upon inquiry, he received letters dated November 10, 2020, and November 23, 2020 (Annexure – A4), alleging deficits in office imprest and unregularized expenses for a GM inspection.

The applicant responded with a reply (Annexure – A5) and a representation (Annexure – A6).

On January 21, 2021, an amount of Rs. 12,62,561/- was released, and Rs. 41,174/- was deducted from his settlement dues.

The respondents claimed the deduction was for Rs. 23,950/- for an unregularized pay order for GM inspection and Rs. 17,214/- for a cash imprest shortage.

They also cited the applicant's prior penalties for not clearing bills on time (Annexure – R3) and submitting a false birth certificate to gain unlawful benefits (Annexure – R4).

The applicant filed the present OA on June 27, 2024, seeking a refund of the deducted amount with interest and for interest on the DCRG amount.

He also filed MA No. 375/2024 for condonation of delay, arguing he was expecting action on his representations and delayed due to the Corona exemption.

Whether the delay in filing the petition by D. Shankar Narayanan is liable to be condoned.

Whether the amount of Rs. 41,174/- was illegally recovered from the applicant.

The court primarily referenced Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for the prescribed limitation period for filing applications.

It also applied principles from Sections 101, 102, 103, and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (and corresponding sections of The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), concerning the burden of proof, particularly that the burden lies on the person asserting a fact and on whom knowledge of facts is especially within.

Furthermore, the court considered Rule 15(1) to 15(4) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which justifies recovery.

and Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) of the Railway Servant (Conduct) Rules, 1966, regarding employee conduct.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed significantly beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as the cause of action arose on January 21, 2021, but the petition was filed on June 27, 2024, a delay of over 2 years and 5 months after deducting the limitation period.

The applicant's reasoning for the delay—expecting action on representations and the "Corona exemption"—was deemed insufficient, especially given his senior position and assumed knowledge of legal procedures.

On the merits, even though the case was barred by limitation, the court considered the recovery.

It observed that the "No-Dues Certificates" were issued in good faith, but subsequent scrutiny revealed unadjusted amounts.

Applying the principles of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof was on the applicant to demonstrate that he had adjusted the cash imprest and submitted vouchers for the GM inspection expenditure.

Despite repeated opportunities and the respondents providing documented evidence of the outstanding amounts (Annexure – R1, R2, and subsequent documents dated November 3, 2025, and September 9, 2025), the applicant failed to produce any evidence or rebuttal to prove his submissions of vouchers or repayment.

The Tribunal also highlighted the applicant's past misconduct and penalties for similar financial irregularities and attempting to falsify his date of birth, indicating a pattern of questionable conduct.

Therefore, the recovery by the department was deemed justified under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules.

Consequently, MA No. 375 of 2024 for condonation of delay was rejected.

The Tribunal further concluded that the amount of Rs. 41,174/- was rightly recovered from the applicant, and the respondents did not commit any mistake or illegality in deducting the said amount.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.