Recovery from retiral dues without notice or fault of the employee is impermissible under law.

ORDER

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-

“(i) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 23.3.2023 along with corrigendum dated 23.09.2021 (as it issued without any show cause notices) with further direction to restore the pay @ Rs. 94100/- as on 01.07.2021 and further direct the respondents to refund the deducted amount of Rs. 2,58,000/- from the DCRG of the applicant with 12% interest till its actual payment.

(ii) The Hon’ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court finds deem fit and proper.

(iii) Cost of application, payable in favour of the applicant”.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Goods Guard in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 on compassionate grounds and joined the post on 07.12.1990. During the course of service, he earned several promotions and lastly worked as Guard (Mail) till his retirement on 31.10.2021. Upon retirement, the respondents issued a service certificate dated 29.10.2021, wherein the details of terminal benefits were also mentioned. However, in the said certificate, an alleged overpayment of Rs. 2,58,255/- was shown. On this basis, by the impugned order dated 23.03.2023, a recovery of Rs. 2,58,255/- was effected from the applicant’s DCRG, relying upon a financial noting dated 23.09.2021 duly vetted by the Accounts Department. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred the present Original Application.

3. The respondents stated in the counter affidavit that while working as Guard (Mail), applicant had drawn emoluments in excess of his admissible entitlement on account of erroneous fixation of pay and allowances. The excess payment quantified at Rs. 2,58,255/– was duly detected and verified by the Accounts Department vide noting dated 23.09.2021. Consequently, while issuing the service certificate dated 29.10.2021 and finalizing the retiral dues, the said overpayment was reflected and by the impugned order dated 23.03.2023, recovery of the aforesaid amount was affected from the applicant’s DCRG. The respondents also stated in the counter affidavit that such recovery has been made strictly in accordance with rules and financial propriety, and the applicant, having received benefits beyond his entitlement, cannot claim protection against adjustment of the overpaid amount. Thus, the present Original Application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

4. The applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit as filed by the respondents refuting the contentions made by the respondents in their Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments made in the O.A. and nothing new has been added.

5. I have heard Shri S.K Kushwaha learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

6. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the recovery effected from the DCRG by the respondents is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is contended that the alleged overpayment was calculated only at the stage of retirement on the ground that excess pay said to have been drawn due to a mistake, whereas the applicant had never furnished any undertaking permitting recovery from his retiral dues. It is also contended that the overpayment, if any, occurred solely due to the fault of the respondents and not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the applicant. In su