IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, SHAILENDRA SINGH, JJ.
The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Government of India – Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar Sinha Son of Late Sheo Nandan Prasad – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19257 of 2025
Decided On : 22-01-2026
Service Law – Recovery – Re-fixation of pay – Recovery would be impermissible in law in any other case, where court arrives at conclusion that recovery if made from employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh equitable balance of employer's right to recover – In case there is no misrepresentation on part of employee leading to excess payment being made to him on head of salary, no recovery is permissible – Present case is squarely covered by Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016, issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India as also by RBE No. 72/2016 dated 22.06.2016, issued by Railway Board, Ministry of Railways – No recovery is permissible as far as case of respondent is concerned, even if petitioners pass an adverse order regarding re-fixation of pay of respondent – Impugned order passed by CAT affirmed – Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 12, 17 and 18)
Cases Referred:
State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 – Distinguished.
Surendra Mandal vs. State of Bihar, LPA No. 431 of 2021, dated 18.10.2022; Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala, (2022) SCC online SC 536; Raj Kumar Batra vs. State of Haryana, (1992) 1 SCT 129; G. Srinivas vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 13 SCC 712; Chandi Prasad Uniyal vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417; High Court of Punjab & Haryana vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267 – Referred.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of pay revision and recovery orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding legality of recovery actions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court analysis on recovery principles and legal precedents. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 31.01.2025, passed by the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CAT’) in O.A. No. 050/00764/2023, whereby and whereunder while disposing off the original application filed by the respondent herein, the order of recovery dated 18.02.2022 along with the order dated 23.09.2021 read with the order dated 30.11.2018 have been quashed and the petitioners have been directed to forthwith refund the amount already recovered. The Ld. CAT, while setting aside the aforesaid orders dated 30.11.2018, 23.9.2021 and 18.2.2022, whereby the pay-scale of the respondent has been re-fixed, has also directed the petitioners to pass a reasoned and a speaking order regarding re- fixation of pay of the respondent within three months in view of the precedents as also considering the Railway Rules.
2. The brief facts of the case as averred in the original application filed by the respondent herein is that while he was working as Loco Pilot (Goods) in the pay-scale of Rs. 5500 - Rs. 9000/-, he was promoted to the post of Chief Loco Inspector-cum-Safety Counsellor in the pay-scale of Rs. 6500- Rs.10,500/- with effect from 01.04.2004, after being found suitable in the selection test conducted by the petitioner no. 5, whereafter he was posted under Senior Divisional Safety Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur vide order dated 22.06.2004 as also his pay was fixed on promotion with effect from 01.04.2004. The respondent had then drawn annual increments and all other benefits since 01.04.2004 till the month of September, 2020 and his basic pay had reached a sum of Rs. 99,800/- which also included the effect of revision of pay-scale from time to time on account of implementation of the various recommendations of the Central Pay Commission, after due vetting by the Accounts Department. However, it is the case of the respondent that when he received the pay slip for the month of October, 2020, he found that his basic pay had been revised from a sum of Rs. 99,800/- to Rs. 86,100/- without the petitioners having passed any adverse order regarding reduction of pay-scale of the respondent. The respondent had then submitted a representation dated 24.11.2020 against the said reduction of pay, however neither any order was passed on the same nor he was communicated about the reasons for reducing his pay after 16 years, leading to the respondent filing an original application bearing O.A. No. 325 of 2021, which was dismissed as not pressed by an order dt. 09.07.2021, passed by the Ld. CAT, while recording the submission of the respondent that he wants to file a fresh representation.
3. The respondent had again submitted a representation on 22.07.2021, however he received a show cause dated 23.9.2021 along with an order dated 30.11.2018, re-fixing the pay scale of the respondent with effect from 01.04.2004, wherein it had been stated that since his pay has wrongly been fixed with effect from the year 2004, the department has assessed that a sum of Rs. 17,65,430/- is required to be recovered from him on account of over payment made to him, hence he may submit his show cause reply within 15 days. The respondent had then filed his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on 06.10.2021, inter- alia stating therein that his pay has been correctly fixed as on 01.04.2004 and the pay scale of similarly situated employees has not been reduced, apart from reference having been made to the Circular of the Railway Board dated 22.06.2016 issued in light of DoPT’s OM dated 02.03.2016, based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Rafiq
Recovery of excess payments made to employees is impermissible where no fault exists on the employee's part and payments have spanned over five years, protecting livelihood rights.
Recovery of excess payments from employees must consider the impact on individuals, particularly retirees, and may be deemed iniquitous if it leads to hardship.
Point of Law : Relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that wi....
Recovery of excess payments from employees without their fault violates principles of equity and fairness, especially when recovery occurs post-retirement and after a significant period.
Recoveries from retired employees based on erroneous salary payments are impermissible, emphasizing equitable treatment and judicial discretion in enforcing employee rights.
Recovery of excess pay from Group C employees impermissible if due to employer's error without employee's fault, per Rafiq Masih.
Recovery from retired employees is impermissible when excess payments were made without misrepresentation, as per established legal precedents.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.