ORDER

{As per Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Member (Admn.)}

2. The OA is filed for not fixing the pension based on the last pay drawn.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined the respondents organisation on 20.12.1977 as a casual labour and rose up to the rank of Dy. Chief Ticket Inspector. Intermittently he was medically decategorised and finally opted for voluntary retirement and retired on 30.9.2009 as Dy. Chief Ticket Inspector in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34,800 with grade pay of Rs.4200. The last pay drawn for the months of July, Aug and Sep of 2009 is Rs.18,280, whereas in the PPO issued it was shown as Rs.17,740. The applicant made several representations and the last one to the 1st respondent was on 16.4.2017. As there was no response the OA is filed.

4. The contentions of the applicant are that pension has to be worked out on the last pay drawn and not doing so is illegal and arbitrary. Pension rules are statutory in nature and cannot be violated. Pension has to be drawn based on the orders of this Tribunal in OA Nos.658/2011, 1334/2010 & 1220/2013 wherein pension was ordered to be calculated based on the last pay drawn.

5. Respondents contend that the pay scale of the applicant when he retired voluntarily on 30.9.2009 was Rs.9300-34,800 with G.P of Rs.4200 and taking into account the same the pay was calculated as Rs.17,740 against the claim of the applicant for Rs.18,280. The last pay was worked based on service book details which are authentic. Due to technical issues the pay of the applicant in 2006 was wrongly fixed as Rs.16,710 instead of Rs.16,220 w.e.f 1.7.2006.

This has resulted in enhanced pay during the last few months as pointed out by the applicant. The basic pay of Rs.17,740 was thoroughly checked with the service record and accordingly shown in the PPO. The over payment made is Rs.22,885 and would be recovered in due course.

6. Heard the learned counsel and perused the documents placed on record. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the rule to fix pension on the last pay drawn has to be followed. The learned counsel for the respondents was fair in submitting that there was an error in working out the pay of the applicant and the correction of the same has led to decrease of pension.

7(A) Pension is drawn based on the last pay drawn as per 6th CPC recommendations. There is no dispute in this regard. However, the last pay drawn should be the correct figure for working out pension is the argument of the respondents. The respondents have been fair enough to admit their mistake that in the year 2006, applicant pay was wrongly fixed as Rs.16,710 instead of Rs 16,220 w.e.f 1.7.2006. This mistake led to higher pay being drawn in the last few months before retirement. The error occurred due to technical glitches and transfer of ministerial staff. The actual pay of the applicant after due verification of the service book is Rs.17,740. Accordingly pension has been arrived at.

(B) However, Rule 1023 of Indian Railway Accounts Code Part -1 states that the check of the service book should not go into the distant past and at the most confine itself to a maximum of 24 months preceding retirement. Indian Railway Code is statutory in nature. Respondents need to follow the rules laid down by them. In the present case, the mistake occurred in 2006 and the applicant retired in 2009. The period of review went beyond 24 months which is against the rule quoted. The case is fully covered by the verdict of this Tribunal in OA 1193/2015. Besides, as per Honourable Supreme court observation in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334, no recovery can be made from the pensionary benefits for any excess payments made. However, the respondent organisation being a Public Institution of great repute, should not suffer losses because of inefficiency of those responsible for the error in allowing the higher pay. The respondents have a specialised accounts wing w