Refunding excess payment due to undertaking and delayed challenge bars later claim.

The husband of Applicant No. 1 served as a Loco Pilot (Mail), Group ‘B’, in South Western Railway from 1989 and retired on 31.07.2013

On 11.04.2014, he received a communication from the Senior Divisional Finance Manager stating that an excess leave salary of Rs. 2,73,411/- had been paid at the time of retirement

On 21.04.2014, he submitted a representation referring to a news report about the impermissibility of recovery from retired employees

However, on 24.04.2014, he remitted the entire amount via cheque, requesting that no recovery be made from his pension

He submitted another representation on 02.05.2014, stating that although he had returned the amount, he believed the recovery to be unjust

No legal proceedings were initiated by him during his lifetime, and he passed away on 19.02.2024

In May 2024, Applicant No. 2 invoked CPGRAMS seeking a refund, but the respondents declined on 18.06.2024, stating the case was closed in 2014

It was undisputed that the employee had executed Form No. 21, an undertaking acknowledging that pensionary benefits were provisional and excess payments would be refundable

The excess payment was found to be due to an erroneous inclusion of 55% running allowance in the leave salary

1. Whether the recovery of excess leave salary from the deceased employee was arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to law

2. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the refund of Rs. 2,73,411/- with 18% interest

3. Whether there is sufficient cause for the condonation of delay of approximately 3650 days in filing the Original Application

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles regarding recovery of excess payments from employees, as established in various Supreme Court pronouncements.

It referred to *State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih* (2015) 4 SCC 334, which held that recovery from retired employees is ordinarily impermissible, particularly if not attributable to fraud or misrepresentation

However, the Tribunal emphasized the clarification in *High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh* (2016) 14 SCC 267, which held that *Rafiq Masih* does not apply where an employee furnishes a specific undertaking agreeing to refund excess payments, as the employee is bound by such undertaking

The Tribunal also acknowledged the liberal approach to condonation of delay in *Collector v. Katiji* (1987) 2 SCC 107 and *Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao* (2002) 3 SCC 195, but noted that this does not justify conscious inaction over a decade

It further distinguished equitable protection against recovery from an absolute proprietary right over mistaken public funds

The Tribunal found that the deceased employee had executed Form No. 21, an undertaking to refund any excess payments detected

The employee received due notice explaining the excess payment, which arose from the erroneous inclusion of 55% running allowance in the leave salary

The employee voluntarily refunded the amount without disputing the calculation, asking for instalments, or expressing financial distress

Although aware of legal precedents, he consciously took no legal action for ten years after the recovery

The Tribunal held that *Jagdev Singh* (supra) overrides *Rafiq Masih* (supra) when a voluntary undertaking exists

It also differentiated the current case from typical *Rafiq Masih* scenarios, noting that the excess payment occurred at retirement, making detection only possible post-retirement

Given the employee's conscious and voluntary actions and the significant delay, the Tribunal found no grounds for condoning the delay or reopening the settled matter

The principles of natural justice were deemed satisfied as the employee received written notice, had multiple opportunities to respond, and voluntarily made the payment

Consequently, the legal heirs cannot reopen this settled issue a decade later

The Tribunal found no sufficient cause for condonation of delay, no merit warranting interference, no violation of binding precedent, and no subsisting enforceable right

Therefore, Miscellaneous Application 170/00123/2025 was rejected, and Original Application 170/00138/2025 was dismissed

No order as to costs was made