Recovery of excess salary payments from a retired employee is legally impermissible if the error persisted for over five years, irrespective of whether the employee held a Gazetted or non-Gazetted post, given the resulting hardship and the principles of equity.

SUDHANGSHU KUMAR BISWAS, son of Late Santi Kumar Biswas, aged

about 63 years, Retired PS-I to Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern

Railway, Malda Division residing at 12/1, Jatin Saha Road, near

Golden Gym Lodge, P.O. Shaktinagar, P.S. Kotowali, District: Nadia,

Pin-741102. (M): 7477717538, Email ID:

barunchatterjee.me@gmail.com

....... Applicant.

-versus-

1. Union of India, service through the General Manager, Eastern

Railway, 17, N.S. Road, Fairlie Place, Kolkata-700001.

2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, 17, N.S.

Road, Fairlie Place, Kolkata-700001.

3. Principal Financial Advisor, Eastern Railway, 17, N.S. Road, Fairlie

Place, Kolkata-700001.

4. Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Eastern Railway, Malda

Division, P.O. Jhalihalia, District Malda, Pin-732102.

5. Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Malda Division,

Malda-732102.

6. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Malda

Division, Malda-732102.

....Respondents

For the Applicant : Mr. B. Chatterjee (Counsel)

For the Respondents : Mr. S.K. China (Counsel)

O R D E R

Per Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :

1. This matter is taken up by Single Bench in view of the revised list dated 04.04.2000 issued under Sub section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and as no complicated question of law is involved this matter is taken up for disposal.

2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief(s):

“(a) An order quashing/setting aside the impugned action of reduction of pay of the applicant and further directing the respondents to restore the pay of the applicant as he was enjoying prior to purported re-fixation of pay and also directing the respondent authorities to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant.

(b) An order quashing and/or setting aside the impugned Speaking Order dated 13.07.2023.

(c) An order do issue directing the respondents to refund Rs.2.17 (Lacs) (Approx.) and/or the amount recovered from the settlement dues with interest.

(d) An order directing the respondents to produce/cause production of all relevant records.

(e) Any other or further order or orders or direction as to Your Lordships may seem fit and proper.”

3. During hearing, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not pressing the relief claimed by him in Para 8(a) of the OA with respect to re-fixation of his pay and pension. He confines his challenge to the order of recovery of Rs. 2.17 lakh from his DCRG. Since the issue under adjudication is related to recovery from the DCRG of the applicant, the matter is taken up for final hearing by the Single Bench in terms of the revised list dated 04.04.2000.

4. Facts as narrated by the applicant are as follows:

Applicant retired as PS-I on 28/02/2021. An amount of Rs. 2.17 lakh was recovered from his settlement dues. The applicant made a representation against the recovery of Rs. 2.17 lacs (approx.) from his settlement dues on account of alleged over payment due to wrong fixation of pay at the fag end of his service but the same was not considered. The applicant filed one Original Application which was disposed of on 23.02.2022 by directing the respondent authority to dispose of the pending representation which was communicated to the respondents. The respondent authorities passed a speaking and reasoned order and turned down the prayer of the applicant. Hence this Original Application.

5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant makes the following submissions:

5.1 Prior to his retirement, no communication was made to th