Recovery of excess payments from Group C retired employees for periods exceeding five years is impermissible.

The Applicant, a Group ‘C’ (Class III) Senior Section Engineer with the South Western Railway, retired on superannuation on 31.01.2025

Ten days prior to his retirement, the Respondents issued a notice for the re-fixation of his pay, alleging that an extra annual increment had been mistakenly granted in 2007

Following his retirement, on 04.07.2025, the Respondents recovered a sum of ₹3,78,325/- from the Applicant’s leave salary

The Applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a refund of the recovered amount, primarily relying on the equitable principles against recovery from retired employees

1. Whether the recovery of excess payments from a retired Group ‘C’ employee is permissible when the recovery pertains to an error occurring more than five years prior to the order

2. Whether the recovery action by the Respondents violated the guidelines established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and subsequent administrative circulars

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334, which prohibited recoveries from Group ‘C’ employees, retired employees, or cases where excess payment was made for a period exceeding five years

It further relied on the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016 and Railway Board RBE No. 72/2016, which adopted the Rafiq Masih guidelines for railway servants

The Tribunal also noted Pension Rule 15 (RBE No. 70/2016) regarding the timely assessment of government dues before retirement

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s case fell squarely within the prohibitive parameters of Rafiq Masih

Specifically, the Applicant was a Group ‘C’ employee (attracting Clause 12(i)), the recovery was initiated just before retirement and executed post-retirement (attracting Clause 12(ii)), and the period of overpayment spanned approximately 18 years (2007–2025), far exceeding the five-year limit (attracting Clause 12(iii))

The Respondents' argument that they were entitled to correct a pay-fixation error was rejected on the grounds that such recovery, after such a prolonged duration and at the stage of retirement, is deemed iniquitous and harsh under the law of the land

The Tribunal observed that the Respondents’ actions were a "deliberate disregard" of binding judicial precedents and administrative circulars

The Respondents were directed to refund the recovered amount of ₹3,78,325/- from the Applicant’s retiral benefits

The order must be implemented within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy

No order was made as to costs