(Reserved on 13.01.2026)

Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ****

Original Application No.1440 of 2024 This the 21^st Day of January, 2026.

Hon’ble Mrs. Manju Pandey, Member (A)

Jai Prakash Ram son of Hawaldar resident of village Tapani, Post Janaupur District Ballia, presently R/O Sahadatpur, New Basti, Shikshak Colony, Brahmsthan District Mau, Uttar Pradesh ….Applicant By Advocate: Mr. Surendra Kumar Versus

1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi

2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway Varanasi 3. Divisional Personal Officer, North Eastern Railway Varanasi. 4. Divisional Finance Manager, North Eastern Railway Varanasi

5. Assistant Personal Officer, North Eastern Railway Varanasi .…Respondents By Advocate: Mr. Bashist Tiwari

ORDER

Learned counsel for both the parties are present and heard.

2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-

“(a) Issue ar order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.3.2024 issued from the office of Divisional Personal Officer, North Eastern Railway Varanasi under the signature of Assistant Personal Officer, North Eastern Railway Varanasi whereby the order has been passed for deduction of Rs. 3,77,422/- from the applicant showing excess payment and seeking further relief directing the respondents to refund the deducted amount from the retiral benefit of the applicant.

(b) Award costs of proceedings and (c) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case”

3. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the Original Application are that the applicant was working as Station Superintendent, Pipridih, District Mau under the North Eastern Railway. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2024. According to the applicant, during his entire service career, no disciplinary or vigilance proceedings were initiated against him. Officer, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi, under the signature of the Assistant Personnel Officer, directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,77,422/- from the applicant on the ground of alleged excess payment. The order did not specify the head or period under which such excess payment was stated to have been made. In pursuance of the said order dated 21.03.2024, an amount of Rs. 3,77,422/- was recovered from the applicant’s retiral/terminal benefits, which is reflected in the details of terminal benefits released to the applicant on 28.03.2024. On 28.03.2024, the pension of the applicant was disbursed through a public sector bank and the Pension Payment Order (PPO) was also issued by the Divisional Finance Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi on the same date. Aggrieved by the recovery order dated 21.03.2024 and the consequent deduction from his retiral benefits, the applicant filed the present Original Application, contending inter alia that the recovery was made without issuing any show cause notice or affording him an opportunity of hearing, that he had no role in the alleged excess payment, and that the recovery effected at the verge of retirement is arbitrary and illegal.

4. The respondents filed a Counter Reply denying the allegations made in the Original Application. It has been stated that the recovery has been effected in accordance with Rule 15 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which permits adjustment of Government or Railway dues, including excess payment, from pensionary and retiral benefits. It is the case of the respondents that due to a mistake, an excess amount of Rs. 3,77,422/- was paid to the applicant and, therefore, the same was liable to be recovered. It has further been stated that no illegality or mala fide has been committed by the department and that excess payment, if detected later, can be rectified.

5.