Recovery of erroneously paid sums from retired employees is impermissible.

The Applicant was initially appointed as a Substitute Sweeper-cum-Porter on 18.12.1979, with his services regularized effective 22.05.1985

He was promoted to Points Man ‘B’ in 2000 and Points Man ‘A’ in 2003

In 2011, he was selected and posted as a Goods Guard, a promotion effected through selection, not as a regular channel

His pay was revised on 10.07.2012, granting one increment as a one-time measure with effect from 01.01.2006

Subsequently, by an impugned order dated 23.11.2015 from the 3rd respondent, his pay was again revised and regularized in terms of paragraph 4 of Railway Board Establishment (RBE) No.101/2009 dated 10.06.2009, reducing his pay from Rs.12,900/- to Rs.12,020/-, a reduction of Rs.2,471/-

Following a representation dated 30.01.2016 and a direction from this Tribunal in OA No.350 of 2016 on 10.03.2016, the 4th respondent rejected his claim via an order dated 25.04.2016, leading to the present OA

The Applicant retired from service

Whether the impugned order dated 23.11.2015, revising the Applicant's pay based on RBE No.101/2009, and the consequential recovery order dated 25.04.2016, are illegal and arbitrary

Whether the promotion of the Applicant to the post of Goods Guard, which was through a selection process and not a regular promotion, falls outside the applicability of RBE No.101/2009

The court primarily applied Railway Board Establishment (RBE) No.101/2009 dated 10.06.2009, which implements the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) for Railway employees

Specifically, paragraph 4 of RBE No.101/2009 stipulates that the benefit of pay fixation available at the time of regular promotion shall also be allowed at the time of financial upgradation under MACPS, with pay to be raised by 3% of the total pay in the pay band plus grade pay drawn prior to upgradation

It further states that no additional pay fixation is permissible at the time of regular promotion if it is to a post carrying the same grade pay as already granted under MACPS, and if the promotion is to a post carrying a higher grade pay than that available under MACPS, only the difference in Grade Pay is admissible without any additional fixation

Promotional upgradations granted under the ACP Scheme previously, to grades merged into a single grade pay under the Sixth Central Pay Commission, are not to be treated as promotions for MACPS purposes

The court found that the Applicant's service history, including promotions and financial upgradations, was reviewed in light of RBE No.101/2009

The respondents' counsel argued that earlier promotions as Porter (05.03.1992) and Points Man 'B' were not treated as promotions for MACP purposes because those grades were merged into a single grade pay of Rs.1800/- under the Sixth CPC, which is aligned with the RBE

The Applicant was granted the second MACP to a higher grade pay of Rs.2000/- on 01.09.2008 and the third MACP to Rs.2400/- on 18.12.2009, upon completion of the prescribed service, correctly ignoring the merged earlier promotions

The court determined that in terms of RBE No.101/2009, the Applicant was not entitled to any additional increment upon his promotion to higher grade pays of Rs.2800/- (Goods Guard on 29.08.2011) and Rs.4200/- (Senior Goods Guard on 24.08.2013 and Senior Passenger Guard on 13.12.2013)

The court concluded that the fixation carried out by the respondents was in accordance with the applicable rules, thus discrediting the Applicant's argument that RBE No.101/2009 was inapplicable because his promotion to Goods Guard was by selection

The court held that the Applicant's challenge to the revision of pay could not be sustained, affirming that the pay fixation carried out by the respondents was in accordance with the applicable rules, specifically RBE No.101/2009

However, considering the Applicant's retirement, the respondents were directed not to effect any recovery pursuant to the Memorandum dated 23.11.2015

No order as to costs was made