(Reserved on 14.11.2025)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad ****

Original Application No.1060/2018 This is the 17^th Day of December, 2025.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Hari Mohan aged about 57 years, S/o Sri Sundar Lal, (Ex-Track Man), Resident of House No.469 B, New Model Railway Colony, Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly.

………..Applicant By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar Versus

1. Union of North India through General Manager North Easter Railway, Gorakhpur.

2. Divisional Railway Manager (P), North Eastern Railway, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly. 3. The Bank Manager, Allahabad Bank, Branch Nagariya Parikshit, District Bareilly.

……… Respondents By Advocate: Shri Arvind Kumar (Respondent – 1 &2)

Shri P.N. Tripathi (Respondent-3)

O R D E R

Heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, none present for the Respondent No.3 (Bank), 2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following main relief(s):-

(i) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature directing the respondents department to release the full monthly pension of the applicant as usual, without making any deduction from the pension of the applicant.

ii. To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature directing the respondents department to refund the deducted amount of the pension of applicant from the month of June 2018 till now along with market rate of interest. “

3. The facts of the case, as per the Original Application, are that the applicant was initially appointed as a Trackman (Group ‘D’) in the year 1987 and has since rendered long service in the Railways. In the year 2015, the applicant applied for voluntary retirement under the LARGESS Scheme, which was duly considered and accepted by the competent authority, leading to his retirement on 30.05.2016.

3.1 Upon his retirement, the respondent-department issued a Pension Payment Order (PPO) quantifying the qualifying service of the applicant and fixing his pension at ₹15,550/- along with admissible Dearness Allowance. Subsequently, an amended PPO dated 09.02.2017 was issued in accordance with the 7th Central Pay Commission and in terms of the said PPO the applicant continued to draw a monthly pension of ₹14,273/- up to the month of May 2018.

3.2 The grievance of the applicant began in June 2018 when, without any prior intimation or notice, the concerned ank suddenly reduced his pension by deducting an amount of ₹6,220/- per month, thereby reducing his pension to ₹6,994/- per month. On noticing the drastic reduction, the applicant approached the Bank Manager seeking clarification; however, no satisfactory explanation was provided. He thereafter submitted written representations to the Bank Manager on 02.07.2018 and to the departmental authorities on 10.07.2018 requesting reasons for the deduction, but neither authority furnished any response or justification.

Hence, this Original Application.

4. In their counter affidavit dated 01.10.2019 filed on behalf of the Respondent No.3 (Bank), it is submitted that the applicant retired on 30.05.2016 under the LARGESS/VRS Scheme and his pension and commutation were correctly fixed through the PPOs issued, including the revised PPO dated 09.02.2017. It is stated that the applicant has not challenged the PPOs in the present OA. As per the revised PPO, the pension was enhanced from ₹5,915/- to ₹15,550/- and the commutation amount from ₹2,366/- to ₹6,220/- with effect from 31.05.2016 and the commutation was to continue up to 31.05.2031.

4.1 The respondents further contended that since the revised PPO was applicable from 31.05.2016, the applicant had received excess commutation/restoration amount of ₹3,854/- per month, leading to arrears of commutation requiring recovery for the period from 31.05.2016 to May 2018. It is stated that a recovery of ₹3,425/- per month was being made