Facts
The applicant, a retired Railway Mate, superannuated on 30.04.2018 after approximately 25 years of service
Source reference: p. 3Upon retirement, the respondents deducted ₹2,39,001/- from his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) on the grounds of overpayment, alleging he had availed 1,727 days of Leave Without Pay (LWP) during his service
Source reference: p. 6Additionally, ₹30,000/- was deducted for the Retired Employees Liberalised Health Scheme (RELHS)
Source reference: p. 6The applicant challenged these deductions and the speaking order dated 26.10.2018, which was passed following a direction from the Tribunal in a previous litigation (O.A. No. 050/666/2018)
Source reference: p. 4The applicant contended that the recovery was illegal, violated principles of natural justice, and that he never opted for RELHS
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the deduction of ₹2,39,001/- from the applicant’s DCRG toward overpayment for LWP is legally sustainable under the Railway Service (Pension) Rules
Source reference: p. 82. Whether the deduction for RELHS was valid based on the option Form and Railway Board circulars
Source reference: p. 63. Whether the principles established in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) regarding recovery from retired employees apply to the present facts
Source reference: p. 8Law Applied
Rule 15 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, which empowers the administration to recover sums due or excess payments from an employee's gratuity
Source reference: p. 6Railway Board's Letter No. 2017/H/28/1/RELHS dated 23.02.2017 regarding mandatory or optional health scheme contributions
Source reference: p. 6The Tribunal distinguished its application, holding that recovery of money paid due to administrative error is permissible when the employee was not legally entitled to the amount and the error is discovered during the final settlement of records
Source reference: p. 8Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the respondents’ scrutiny of service records prior to retirement revealed the applicant had drawn full salary despite 1,727 days of LWP, which is nearly four years and eight months
Source reference: p. 7The Tribunal reasoned that it is beyond "common prudence" to assume the applicant was unaware of receiving salary for such a significant period of absence; thus, the omission to report this extra payment constitutes a sufficient basis for recovery
Source reference: p. 8Regarding RELHS, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had provided a post-retirement address at Raxaul, where medical facilities were available, and the respondents produced the applicant's application form opting for the scheme (Annexure R/2 R/3)
Source reference: p. 6-7The Tribunal concluded that the recovery was corrective rather than punitive and that the precedents cited by the applicant were distinguishable as they did not grant blanket immunity for retaining funds to which there was no legal entitlement
Source reference: p. 9Holding
The Tribunal held that there was no illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fide in the actions of the Railway Administration
The recovery of ₹2,39,001/- for overpayment and ₹30,000/- for RELHS was upheld as per Rule 15 of the Pension Rules and extant Railway Board circulars; Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the applicant
Source reference: p. 6-7, 9Original Court PDF
JHAPAS HAJARAvsRAILWAY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in