Recovery of excess payment from retired employees must comply with statutory timelines; failure to adhere to limits results in dismissal.

ORDER

PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following relief:

a. ...to call for records leading to and connected with the Proceedings issued in No.SCR/P-SC/249/ENGG/DPG/00408 dated 03.10.2023 issued by the 3^rd respondent to declare and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to principles of natural justice and violative article 14, 16 and 21 of The Constitution of India and

b. Consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount already recovered from the applicant’s settlement benefits along with interest applicable in PF deposits and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as narrated by the applicant, are as follows:

i. The applicant was initially appointed as ELR on 03.03.1980 and was, subsequently, absorbed as Trackman in the Respondent-Railways w.e.f. 01.01.1985. While holding a lien as Trackman IV under the Secunderabad Division, he was engaged, on an ad-hoc basis, as a Vehicle Driver in the Construction Organization, in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500, from 1993 to 2010. Thereafter, he was repatriated to his parent cadre and posted to SNF on 04.01.2011. He superannuated from service on 30.11.2020.

ii. It is stated that, upon retirement, an amount of Rs.3,77,021/- was unilaterally deducted from the applicant’s retirement benefits without any prior notice or opportunity of being heard. The said recovery, it is argued, is contrary to Railway Board’s Establishment Circular No.RBE 72 of 2016 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ], which categorically prohibits recovery of excess payments from retired employees or employees due to retire within one year, particularly, when the alleged excess payment was not due to any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. It is also contrary to Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules.

iii. According to the Applicant, Respondents have acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner by effecting recovery from the applicant’s retirement benefits without affording him an opportunity to contest the same. As his persistent persuasion for refund of the alleged excess recovery did not yield any results, the applicant made a representation through the DPG Portal on 18.09.2023, seeking refund of the recovered amount. But the 3^rd Respondent, by his order, dt.03.10.2023, rejected the case of the applicant. The applicant further pursued the matter through DPG Registration, dt.22.03.2024, but the 3^rd Respondent, by his letter, dt.03.04.2024, rejected the case on untenable grounds.

iv. It is submitted that the recovery made at this point of time, from his pension, caused him a lot of hardship. The applicant has also denied having received any excess payment.

v. The applicant contends that pension is a property as provided under the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300A that no person shall be deprived of his property, save by the authority of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., vide their order, dt.14.08.2013, rendered in the context of taking away a part of pension, held that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction