Recovery from retired employees was stayed pending a reasoned decision on their representation.

The ten applicants were retired Railway employees who had subsequently been re-engaged with the Railway Gati Shakti organisation under the West Central Railway.

The respondents issued a communication dated 14 July 2026 seeking recovery from the applicants consequent upon their re-engagement after retirement.

The applicants challenged the proposed recovery, contending that recovery from retired employees was impermissible in law, and relied on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334.

They had also submitted a joint representation dated 15 July 2026 to the Divisional Railway Manager, which remained pending consideration.

The respondents opposed the grant of protection but appeared on advance notice.

1. Whether the respondents should be restrained from making recovery from the applicants, who were retired Railway employees re-engaged after retirement, pending consideration of their challenge to the recovery communication dated 14 July 2026?

2. Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ joint representation against the proposed recovery by a reasoned and speaking order?

The Tribunal considered the principle stated by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, concerning the impermissibility of recovery of excess or wrongly paid amounts in specified circumstances, particularly from retired employees or employees nearing retirement.

Without finally determining the applicability of that precedent or the merits of the recovery, the Tribunal applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority consider a pending representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate whether the proposed recovery was legally valid or whether Rafiq Masih conclusively barred recovery in the applicants’ circumstances.

Since the applicants’ joint representation dated 15 July 2026 was pending before the competent authority, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require that authority to examine the representation and issue a reasoned and speaking decision.

To preserve the applicants’ position and prevent recovery before the administrative decision, the Tribunal directed that no recovery be made until the representation was decided.

The competent authority was directed to consider and decide the applicants’ joint representation dated 15 July 2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the Tribunal’s order.

Until such decision, the respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the applicants.

No order was made as to costs.