Recovery of excess payments from the retiral benefits of Group 'C' employees is subject to established legal precedents and departmental rules, and such grievances should be addressed via a reasoned and speaking order after a formal representation is submitted.

O R D E R

Heard Mr. Naveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P.K. Rai and Mr. Amitabh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following reliefs: -

“I. Issue a order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the amount, which has been recovered due to over payment of increment during the payment of increment during the period from 01.09.1996 to 31.01.2024, Order Passed by the respondent dated 06.02.2024, which is in tune of Rs. 507467, along with grant of arrears till the date of superannuation of the Applicant and the interest @12% be paid till the date of the actual payment.

II. Issue a order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to pay the over payment the preferred by the application for the increment of payment or salary after the superannuation.

III. Pass any other orders or direction deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as a Goods Guard on 24.08.1987 in East Central Railway and was subsequently promoted as Train Manager. During the course of his service, he was subjected to certain minor penalty proceedings, the punishments whereof had already been imposed and undergone by him. Immediately prior to his superannuation on 29.02.2024, the respondents, vide order dated 06.02.2024, imposed a punishment of retardation and, on that basis, recovered a sum of ₹ 5,07,467/- from his DCRG/retiral dues on account of alleged excess payment relating to fixation of increment. The applicant contends that no recovery proceedings had ever been initiated during his entire service and that the impugned recovery at the time of retirement is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, as well as the Railway Board's instructions prohibiting recovery from Group 'C' employees at the stage of retirement. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 and the consequent recovery from his retiral benefits, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking quashing of the impugned action and refund of the recovered amount along with consequential benefits.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant superannuated from service on 29.02.2024 while serving as Train Manager in the East Central Railway. It is submitted that although the applicant had already undergone the punishment imposed upon him, the respondents, vide order dated 06.02.2024, recovered a sum of ₹ 5,07,467/- from his DCRG/retiral dues on account of alleged excess payment relating to fixation of increment. It is further submitted that the impugned recovery has been effected without affording any opportunity of hearing to the applicant and is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that such recovery from the retiral dues of a Group 'C' employee is impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. and the applicable Railway Board instructions.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file a counter affidavit. He, however, submits that the applicant has not availed the alternative departmental remedy available to him for redressal of his grievance by submitting a representation before the competent authority. He submits that in case such a representation is submitted, the