* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:22.12.2025 Pronounced on: 16.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 19448/2025 & CM APPL. 81118/2025 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr.Piyush Gupta, CGSC.

Versus PAWAN KUMAR JAIN (EX-CGS) .....Respondents Through: Nemo.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

J U D G M E N T

MADHU JAIN, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 2039/2020, titled as Pawan Kumar Jain v. Union of India & Ors., filed by the respondent herein, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said O.A., with the following directions:

“8. In view of the same, we disposed of the present matter by partly allowing the O.A. to the extent that we direct the respondents that a refixation order of the pay and pension of the applicant be passed, taking into account that the amount to be recovered is for the withholding of increments for three years from19.08.1998 to be confined to the date of his promotion on 01.03.2002. Subject to the said adjustment, the refund of the balance amount is to be made to the applicant out of the amount already recovered from the applicant, i.e. Rs. 8,11,083/-. Since the respondents are at fault, the appropriate orders for the restoration of pay are accordingly to be issued and the pay of the applicant is restored to the basic pay of Rs. 64,100/. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The O.A. is allowed in the above terms. Pending M.As, if any, are also disposedof.Noorder as tocosts.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. In succinct, the background of the case is that the respondent joined the services of Northern Railway on 03.10.1986 as a Goods Clerk and was promoted to the post of Sr. Goods Clerk in the pay grade of Rs.1200-2040 and then as the Head Goods Clerk in the pay grade of Rs.5000-8000.

3. While he was serving as a Goods Supervisor, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, in the year 1997–1998 under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, in relation to certain lapses in the performance of his official duties.

4. Upon conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the competent Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 19.08.1998, imposed a minor penalty of ‘withholding of increments for a period of three years without cumulative effect’. The said penalty order was duly communicated to the respondent.

5. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent neither challenged the penalty order by way of appeal or revision nor questioned its legality at any point of time. Consequently, the penalty order attained finality and remained valid and subsisting.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that due to an administrative oversight, the said penalty was not implemented in the respondent’s service records at the relevant time. As a result, the respondent continued to draw increments in the normal course and was promoted to the higher pay scale of Rs.5000–8000 with effect from 26.04.1999, during the subsistence of the penalty period. His pay was fixed at the minimum of the promotional scale, and further increments were granted thereafter.

7. The respondent continued to draw salary and consequential benefits on the basis of the aforesaid pay fixation throughout the remainder of his service. He, ultimately, retired from service on 31.05.2020 upon attaining the age of superannuation, while holding the post of Chief Goods Supervisor.

8. At the time of processing the respondent’s retirement and pensionary benefits, a scrutiny of his service records revealed that the penalty imposed vide Order dated 19.08.1998 had never been implemented. In order to give effect to the penalty order, which had already attained finality, the petitioners issued an order date