CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00533 of 2024 Dated, this 2nd day of December, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Rajesh Kumar Chaudhari, aged about 61 years, son of Late Shyam Lal, R/o C-6, Sector C-1, L.D.A. Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow, 226012.

…..Applicant By Advocate: Shri Arpit Chaudhary VERSUS

1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

2. Principal Financial Advisor, Northern Railway, Headquarter Baroda House, New Delhi.

3. Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

4. The Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

…..Respondent By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta

ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to pay fixation and recovery, the applicant has sought following reliefs:

“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent no. 3 to refund the illegally deducted amount of Rs. 4,44,091/- (Four Lac Forty Four Thousand and Ninety One only) from the post-retiral dues along with suitable penal interest against the Respondent no. 3.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing to restore the Pay Fixation due to withdrawal of additional increment on 30.11.2006 as annexed in Annexure no. 2 to this petition.

(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing to pay arrears of difference of full and final Pension till date from the date it became due by revising the Pension of the Applicant with suitable and penal interest against the respondents.

(d) Issue a writ, order or direction thereby quashing the order dated

26.07.2023 and dated 23.08.2023 annexed as Annexure no. 1 to this petition.

(e) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent no. 3 to release the wrongful salary of 3 days deducted against the applicant in the month of June.

(f) Any other order or direction as deemed fit and just by this Hon'ble court may also be passed looking into the circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant.

(g) Award the cost of the case in favour of the applicant.”

2. The applicant retired from the post of Senior Section Officer (Inspection) on 31.07.2023. Aggrieved with the impugned orders dated 26.07.2023 and 23.08.2023 revising his pay with effect from 30.11.2006 and ordering recovery of Rs. 4,44,091/- from his gratuity, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant contends that respondent no. 3 is not the competent authority to withdraw the additional increment granted with effect from 30.11.2006 as he is subordinate to the Railway Board and has taken such action pending guidance from the Railway Board. Further, it is averred that the applicant is Class-III employee and the order of recovery was made 5 days prior to his retirement which is impermissible in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (2015) 4 SCC 334

4. The respondents state that upon review of the applicant’s service record, anomaly in pay fixation was found as RBE No. 33/2016 and the benefit of 3^rd MACP under RBE No. 31/2021 are contradictory and, after approval of the competent authority, recovery was made from the applicant’s gratuity.

5. We have heard both the parties. There are two aspects to the present dispute: pay fixation and recovery.

6.1 Addressing first the issue of recovery, it is noted that the subject matter of recoveries has been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). In this case, the Apex Court was considering those cases wherein the private respondents were beneficiaries of a mistake committed by the employer, and on account of the said unintentional mistake, employees were in receipt of monetary benefits, beyond their due. Another essential feature in those c