Recovery of excess salary from retired Group C employees for long-standing administrative errors is legally impermissible.

The applicant was appointed as a Group-D employee in the South Eastern Railway in 1985 and retired as a TTI (Group C) on 31.01.2023

Upon retirement, the respondents deducted Rs. 3,70,894/- from his retirement gratuity

The respondents justified this recovery by stating that a review of service records in 2022 revealed a pay fixation error originating on 01.01.1986 (4th CPC), where the applicant’s pay was fixed at Rs. 199/- instead of Rs. 196/-

The applicant contended that he was not responsible for the error and sought a refund based on DoPT guidelines and judicial precedents

The respondents stated the matter of waiver was referred to the Railway Board and was under "active consideration"

Whether the recovery of excess payments from a retired Grade C employee, resulting from an administrative error occurring over 30 years prior, is permissible under law

principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2014) AIR 2015 SC 696, which identified specific situations where recovery of excess payment is impermissible, including recovery from Group C/D employees and retired employees, or where excess payment was made for over five years

DoPT Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016 and RBE No. 72/2016, which incorporate these judicial directions into administrative policy for the waiver of recoveries

The Tribunal observed that the applicant was a Grade C employee and was in no way responsible for the erroneous pay fixation that occurred in 1986

Applying the Rafiq Masih criteria, the court found the recovery illegal because: (i) the applicant belonged to Group C; (ii) he was a retired employee at the time of recovery; and (iii) the excess payment spanned more than 30 years, far exceeding the five-year limit established by the Supreme Court

The Tribunal further noted that while the respondents acknowledged the possibility of a waiver by referring the case to higher authorities, they had failed to resolve the matter for over two years, causing undue hardship to the retiree

The recovery was thus deemed iniquitous and contrary to the settled law

the applicant's case was squarely covered by the Rafiq Masih judgment

Respondent No. 2 was directed to refund the sum of Rs. 3,70,894/- to the applicant within 90 days of receiving the order

No costs were awarded