SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2096

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Vivek Sharma – Appellant
Versus
North Central Railway – Respondent
O.A./695/2025



(Reserved on 05.02.2026)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD Pronounced on 17th day of February, 2026 Original Application No. 695 of 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member(Judicial)

Vivek Sharma, R/o 58, Ram Mohan Vihar Near 100 Feet Road, Dayalbagh, Agra Uttar Pradesh 282005, retired Chief Loco Inspector, North Central PUNIT Railway, Agra Division, Agra KUMAR MISHRA . . .Applicant By Advocate : Shri Shiv Mangal Prajapati V E R S U S

1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway, Head Quarter Office, Subedarganj, Allahabad

2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Agra Division, Agra

3. The Senior Divisional Finance Manager, North Central Railway Agra Division, Agra . . .Respondents By Advocate : Ms. Shikha Dixit

O R D E R

Heard Shri Shiv Mangal Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Shikha Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing of case.

2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:-

8. (i) to issue an order or direction upon the respondents that they may not deduct Rs.5,00,131/- from the pension of the applicant and also quashed the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by Assistant personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Agra, for recovery of aforesaid amount and further they be directed that of any deduction was made they may be refunded the same to applicant to the date of deduction with 12 % interest otherwise the applicant will suffer an irreparable loss and injury.

(II) Any other relief, which this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.

3. The facts leading to this Original Application as apparent from the record is that applicant while working as Chief Loco Inspector, superannuated from services on 12.02.2024 after attaining the age of superannaution. After the retirement, the respondents issued the order dated 10.06.2025 for recovery of Rs.5,00,131/- from the pension of the applicant passed by Assistant Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Agra and directed the applicant to deposit the aforesaid amount through Demand Draft to the Department otherwise the recovery will be made from PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA his pension.

3.1 Aggrieved by the same, the applicant represented before the respondents on 09.06.2025, but no heed was paid. Hence, this Original Application has been filed.

4. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents on 12.09.2025, wherein it has been stated that the applicant took voluntary retirement from Railway Service on 12.02.2024. At the time of retirement, due to clerical mistake, in the Pension Payment Order dated 20.03.2024, 30 % of the pay element of the applicant’s salary was calculated. However, as per Railway Board letter dated 25.11.1992, 13.11.2017 and 06.03.2019, the pensionary benefits are to be paid by calculating 12 % of the pay element as the applicant has only four months of service on the post of Chief Loco Inspector. Accordingly, revised PPO dated 25.07.2025 has been issued for payment of pensionary benefits by calculating 12 % pay element. The applicant was paid an excess amount of Rs.5,00,131/- as per earlier PPPO. Therefore, the applicant has been given a notice to deposit the said amount vide notice dated 10.06.2025, which was challenged by the applicant. Hence, original application is liable to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have no power to recover of over payment after retirement from the pension of the applicant. No recovery could be made from retired employee. The applicant is a Group ‘C’ retired employees and as such, the respondent cannot recovery any amount from the retired employee if it has been paid in excess. There is no fault or misrep

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top