Recovery notice against a retired employee shall not be enforced pending a reasoned decision on his representation.

The applicant, a retired Loco Inspector of the North Central Railway, challenged the notice dated 10 August 2026 issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer proposing recovery of ₹2,83,034 from his pension on the ground of alleged excess payment.

He contended that the benefit of stepping-up of pay had been granted by the competent authority under Office Order No. X-66/2020 dated 21 August 2020, and that the alleged excess payment was neither procured by fraud nor misrepresentation.

The respondents maintained that, upon review under Railway Board instructions, particularly RBE No. 7/2020 dated 27 January 2020, the stepping-up benefit was inadmissible and recovery was therefore proposed.

During hearing, the applicant limited his prayer to a direction for consideration of his representation dated 24 August 2026 and interim protection against recovery until its decision.

Whether the respondents should be permitted to give effect to the notice dated 10 August 2026 proposing recovery of ₹2,83,034 from the applicant’s pension before deciding his representation.

Whether the respondents/competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 24 August 2026 by a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether the legality and merits of the proposed recovery and withdrawal of the stepping-up benefit required adjudication at this stage.

The applicant relied upon the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, particularly the procedural safeguards governing recovery from pensionary benefits, and upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, which recognise restrictions on recovery of excess payments from retired employees, particularly where the employee was not responsible for the excess payment.

The respondents relied upon Railway Board instruction RBE No. 7/2020 dated 27 January 2020 concerning the admissibility of stepping-up of pay.

The Tribunal ultimately applied the principle of administrative fairness by directing the competent authority to consider the pending representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order before enforcing the proposed recovery.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the stepping-up benefit was lawfully granted or whether recovery was substantively permissible.

In view of the applicant’s limited prayer, it directed the competent authority to examine his representation dated 24 August 2026 in accordance with law and to provide a reasoned decision within three months from receipt of the certified order.

As the recovery notice was under challenge and the representation remained undecided, the Tribunal protected the applicant against enforcement of the notice during that period.

It expressly clarified that it had not entered into the merits of the case.

The respondents/competent authority were directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 24 August 2026 by a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

Until such decision, the notice dated 10 August 2026 proposing recovery of ₹2,83,034 was not to be given effect to.

The Tribunal made no determination on the merits and awarded no costs.