CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 12^th day of June , Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)

AND HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)

G. Kaspar, S/o S. Gabriel, Lascar (Retired)

No.17, Kamarajar Street, Ponmalaipatti, Trichy. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s. J. Shanmuga Sundara Babu Vs

1. Union of India rep by The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Personnel Branch, O/o The Divisional Railway Manager, Tiruchirappalli Division, Southern Railway, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The Senior Divisional Engineer/Co-Ordination, Work Branch, O/o The Divisional Railway Manager, Tiruchirappalli Division, Southern Railway, Tiruchirappalli. .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. D. Simon, SCGSC

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

st “........ to set aside the order of recovery passed by the 1 respondent styled as show cause notice dated 06.03.2024 in No. T/P/EA/I/Over Payment and direct the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.1,99,737/- recovered from the applicant settlement dues and re-fix the basic pay of Rs.43,500/- and revise the pension accordingly and pay the same to the applicant with arrears and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice”

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows: The applicant was initially appointed as a Gangman in Southern Railway on 17.02.1988 and posted to the Engineering Branch, Tiruchirappalli Division. He was later posted as Garden Khalasi in 1991, then as Lascar in 1994. On 02.07.1997, he was transferred from the office of AEN/E/TPJ to AEN/TVR, where he continued to serve under the 2nd respondent until his superannuation on 31.03.2024. Prior to his retirement, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice dated 06.03.2024, stating that the applicant’s pay had been erroneously fixed from 01.09.2008 while granting MACP, and proposed recovery of Rs. 1,99,737/- from his settlement dues. In response, the applicant requested on the same day a detailed calculation of the overpayment and a copy of the Service Register to understand the issue. However, no reply or relevant information was provided by the respondent. After retirement, in April 2024, the applicant received his settlement dues and pension payment order, through which he discovered that Rs. 1,99,737/- had been recovered without any formal order or opportunity to respond. Hence, the present OA.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the communication, dated 06.03.2024, styled as a show cause notice and proposing recovery of Rs.1,99,737/-, is erroneous, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that, prior to any recovery, the respondents are obligated to provide an opportunity to the applicant to offer an explanation, followed by a reasoned order. However, in the present case, no such opportunity was granted, and no proper show cause notice was issued before the recovery was effected. He further argued that the unilateral recovery from the applicant’s settlement dues, without any formal order, led to a reduction in the applicant’s basic pay from Rs.43,500/- to Rs.42,200/-, resulting in a corresponding reduction in pension and causing significant financial loss.

4. The counsel also contended that the order dated 06.03.2024 is, in effect, a recovery order masquerading as a show cause notice, and no actual show cause notice was ever issued prior to the recovery. Thus, the recovery is liable to be set aside. He emphasized that the respondents had no authority to initiate such a recovery when the applicant was on the verge of retirement, especially when the alleged erroneous pay fixation was done by the department itself, without any fault on the part of the applicant. In support of his arguments, he relied on the recent judgment o