Recovery under the pensionary excess-payment notice stayed pending a reasoned decision on the retiree’s representation.

The applicant, a retired Chief Loco Inspector of the North Central Railway, retired on superannuation with effect from 31 July 2023.

He had been granted the benefit of stepping-up of pay by Office Order No. X-66/2020 dated 21 August 2020, pursuant to the applicable Railway Board instructions.

The respondents subsequently issued a notice dated 10 August 2026 proposing recovery of ₹13,46,550 from his pension on the ground that the stepping-up benefit was inadmissible after review under Railway Board instruction RBE No. 7/2020 dated 27 January 2020.

The applicant challenged the notice, asserting that the benefit had been validly granted, that there was no fraud or misrepresentation on his part, and that recovery after retirement was impermissible.

During hearing, he confined his prayer to a direction for consideration of his representation dated 24 August 2026 and interim protection against recovery pending that decision.

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

Whether the recovery notice dated 10 August 2026 should be kept in abeyance until the applicant’s representation is decided.

Whether the proposed recovery from the pension of a retired employee, allegedly arising from an erroneous stepping-up of pay without fraud or misrepresentation, was legally sustainable under the applicable pension rules and precedents.

The matter involved the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, particularly the procedural and substantive requirements governing recovery from pensionary benefits.

Railway Board instructions concerning stepping-up of pay, including RBE No. 7/2020 dated 27 January 2020.

The applicant relied on the principles in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, Civil Appeal No. 7115 of 2010, and State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, under which recovery of excess payments may be impermissible in cases involving retired employees, absence of fraud or misrepresentation, and other circumstances causing undue hardship.

However, the Tribunal expressly declined to adjudicate the merits of these legal questions.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the applicant was substantively entitled to the stepping-up benefit or whether recovery of ₹13,46,550 was permissible.

Although the respondents relied on the subsequent review under RBE No. 7/2020 and the applicant relied on the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, his retirement, and the cited Supreme Court authorities, the applicant ultimately sought only consideration of his pending representation.

The Tribunal considered it appropriate, without entering into the merits, to require the competent authority to examine the representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

To preserve the efficacy of that process, it directed that the recovery notice not be acted upon until the representation was decided.

The respondents/competent authority were directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 24 August 2026 by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

Until such decision, the notice dated 10 August 2026 proposing recovery of ₹13,46,550 was not to be given effect to.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.