CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00032/2024 DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 CORAM:

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

N. Venkatachalapathy S/o Late Narayanappa Aged 68 years Rtd Senior Technician (Carriage & Wagon)

S W Railway, Bengaluru 560 023 .... Applicant (By Shri K. Shivakumar, Advocate – through video conference)

Vs.

1. Union of India Represented by General Manager South Western Railway Gadag Road, Hubballi 580 020

2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Western Railway, Bengaluru 560 023 … Respondents (By Shri Sayed S. Kazi, ACGSC)

kavya kavya shree k CAT Bangalore

2024.12.09 O R D E R (ORAL)

PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount of Rs. 3,00,000 forthwith with 18% interest as the recovery is illegal and impermissible as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the orders of the Railway Board and (ii) Grant any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the applicant who was working as Senior Technician (Carriage and Wagon) in the Bengaluru Division of South Western Railway got retired from service on superannuation on 31.07.2015. On the date of retirement, the applicant was issued with the details of the settlement benefits payable to him wherein a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was shown as deduction made towards deposit pension. The applicant claims that though several requests were made before the 2^nd respondent seeking clarification and refund, the same was not resolved. The applicant submitted a representation on 19.10.2023 requesting to refund the kavya kavya shree k CAT Bangalore

2024.12.09 amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- withheld from his settlement dues. In the Pension Adalat held on 08.11.2023, positive assurance was given to resolve his grievances, but to his utter surprise, a communication was received by post from the 2^nd respondent justifying the action of the respondents in deducting Rs. 3,00,000/- from the DCRG. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. Learned counsel Shri K. Shivakumar representing the applicant submitted that in the communication dated 13.12.2023 (Annexure-A4), it has been stated that the overpayment involved has been recovered from the DCRG but in the advice dated 31.07.2015 (Annexure-A1), it has been mentioned as deposit pension. As per the calculation sheet (Annexure-A5) the overpayment calculated is Rs. 1,53,025/- but as per the advice (Annexure-A1), the amount recovered is Rs, 3,00,000/- and the excess recovery made has not been refunded to the applicant so far. The recovery made from the settlement benefits of the applicant is in violation of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors., reported in (2015) 4 SCC

334, accordingly, seeks for interference of this Tribunal.

kavya kavya shree k CAT Bangalore

2024.12.09

4. Learned counsel Shri Sayed S. Kazi representing the respondents referring to the reply statement filed on behalf of the respondents argued that it was ascertained from leave chart of the applicant that excess credit of leave has been given, hence, the leave chart was reviewed and rectified. In order to avoid undue delay in processing normal settlement, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was kept in deposit pension towards recovery of overpayment of leave credit. Learned counsel further submitted that the inordinate delay in approaching this Tribunal is not satisfactorily explained. Indeed, the applicant has submitted his representation only on 19.10.2023 and the same would not extend the period of limitation.

5. On noticing the overpayment calculated at Rs. 1,53,025/- (Annexure-A5) and the amount recovered i.e., Rs. 3,00,000/- as pe