Reserved On 12 February 2026 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD *********

Original Application No. 612 of 2023 Allahabad this the 25^th day of February, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J Ved Prakash, aged about 61 years, Son of Late Ram Sanwar Sharma, Resident of Village-Nayansar, Post-Tighra (P.P. Ganj), District-Gorakhpur.

Applicant By Advocate: Shri A.D. Singh Vs.

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

2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi.

3. Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), North Eastern Railway, Varanasi.

4. Finance Advisor & Chief Account Officer, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.

Respondents By Advocate: Mr. Krishna Kumar Ojha

O R D E R

Shri A.D. Singh, counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

2. Through the instant O.A., the applicant has challenged the orders dated 23.12.2022 and 30.12.2022 passed by respondent No. 3 and 4 respectively whereby they illegally reduced the pay and fixed the pension MANISH MEHROTRA as Rs.37,000/- instead of Rs.46800/-. Following relief(s) has sought through this O.A.: -

“(i) Quash the impugned orders dated 23.12.2022 and 30.12.2022 issued by respondent no.3 and 4 (Annexure A-1 & A-2 to this O.A. in Compilation No.-I).

(ii) Directing the respondents to pay the pension to the applicant on the basis pay of Rs. 46800/-i.e. level-5 which has been drawn and retired instead of Rs. 37000/- i.e. level-5 in accordance with Rule 50 of Indian Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 and pay the differences of the arrear and retiral benefits to the applicant along with 18% panel interest per annum from the date of retirement to the date of actual payment is being made to the applicant.

(iii) Directing the respondents to refund the recover amount of Rs. 12,54,000/- which has been illegally recovered from the retiral benefits after retirement of the applicant along with 188% panel interest per annum from the date recovery to the date of actual payment is being made to the applicant.

(iv) To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v) Award the cost of the application in favour of the applicant.”

3. The applicant, appointed on 29.12.1984, was promoted up to the post of Electric Signal Maintainer-I (Level-5, GP 2800) and retired on attaining the age of superannuation with a last drawn basic pay of Rs. 46,800/-, as reflected in his pay slips from June 2020 to November 2022; however, without issuing any show cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing, the respondents illegally reduced his basic pay to Rs. 37,000/- and fixed pension on that reduced amount through the impugned PPO, contrary to Rule 50 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which mandates determination of pension on the basis of emoluments drawn during the last ten months of service, and further effected recovery of Rs. 12,54,000/- from his retiral dues after retirement without any prior notice, though no excess payment was ever communicated during service and recovery from a Class-III employee after retirement is impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of MANISH MEHROTRA Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, as well as consistent decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court; hence, the applicant seeks quashing of the impugned orders, refixation of pension on the basis of last drawn pay of Rs. 46,800/-, refund of the recovered amount with interest, and payment of consequential arrears.

4. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Railway Board and Government of India has also issued a circular and Ο.Μ. dated

27.03.2016 to and 22.06.2016 which specifically provided that no recovery shall be made from the group-C and D (Class-III & IV) employees. He has submitted that similar and identical controversy regarding the question of fixation of pension and recovery, has already