Union of India v. Deep Chandra Tiwari

1. This case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Rafiq Masih[1], which stands reiterated in Thomas Daniel v State of Kerala[2].

2. We, in fact, find that several cases which are squarely covered by the decision in Rafiq Masih are being carried to this Court, challenging orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal[3]. We see no reason why, in covered matters, this Court is being burdened with having to spend valuable time and energy in dealing

3. The respondent was appointed as TCI-III in the Northern Railways. During his career, he earned four promotions. He superannuated on 31 March 2020.

4. Prior to the respondent’s superannuation, the Railways prepared a detailed history sheet of the respondent. The accounts branch of the Railways approved the scale of pay of ₹ 1,04,400/- as the last pay drawn by the respondent at the time of his superannuation and forwarded the approval to the concerned authorities for payment of retiral dues. The said authorities in the office of the Railways, however, by order dated 14 April 2020, re-fixed the last pay drawn by the respondent from ₹ 1,04,400/- to ₹ 87,400/-. Consequent thereto, the Railways wrote to the respondent on 4 February 2021, requiring the respondent to refund an amount of ₹ 15,50,664/- so that his retiral benefits could be paid. The respondent was also directed to deposit ₹ 53,669/- for finalisation of his leave encashment and other retiral benefits.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent submitted a representation to the Railways on 1 June 2020, seeking re-fixation of his pay as ₹ 1,04,400/-. A reminder was also sent on 1 July 2020. The Railways did not respond. The respondent, thereupon, approached the Tribunal by way of OA 1053/2021, seeking a direction to the Tribunal to refund the amount of ₹ 15,50,664/- illegally deducted by the Railways from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity[4] of the respondent with interest and to pay arrears of difference of DCRG, leave encashment and full and final pension with interest from the date these amounts became due.

6. The Tribunal has, by the judgment dated 1 February 2024 under challenge, allowed the respondent’s OA following, in the process, the decisions in Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel.

7. The Tribunal noted that, in the counter affidavit, the Railways had sought to contend that the respondent had obtained upward fixation of his pay, in contravention of the law, by colluding with the Railway officials. The argument was, however, unequivocally rejected, observing that no details of the officers with whom the respondent had allegedly colluded were disclosed in the counter affidavit. The Tribunal held that the recovery from the respondent was clearly in the teeth of the law enunciated in Rafiq Masih, which prohibited recoveries of alleged over payments from retired employees or in cases where the recovery order was issued more than five years from the alleged over payment.

8. The recovery from the respondent, it was observed, was contrary to both these stipulations in Rafiq Masih, which were reiterated in Thomas Daniel.

9. We have heard Mr. Himanshu Pathak, learned Senior Panel “DCRG”, hereinafter Counsel appearing for the petitioners at some length.

10. The view adopted by the Tribunal is clearly unexceptionable.

11. Mr. Himanshu Pathak is unable to point out any error in the judgment of the Tribunal. The case is clearly covered by the decision in Rafiq Masih and Thomas Danial. Rafiq Masih enumerated, in para 18, five circumstances in which recovery was impermissible, thus: