A retired railway employee challenged a CA Tribunal order refusing recovery of excess pension payments based on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih. The High Court refused to interfere as the Tribunal acted correctly within settled law.
High Court dismissed the writ petition and closed interlocutory applications without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 7454 OF 2020
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
Nazeer Khan Son Yousuf Khan, Muslim Retired Catering Inspector TPTY D.No 1476 Padmavathi Nagar Tirupati 517502 Chittoor District (A.P.)
...Respondent
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to and in connection with the order Dt. 01.10.2018 passed in O.A. No.20/00047/2017 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, and quash the same.
IA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
suspend the order dated: 01.10.2018 passed in O.A. No.20/00047/2017 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.BHASKAR
The Court made the following: order
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P. No.7454 OF 2020
ORDER:(per A. V. Sesha Sai, J)
Heard Sri Mallampalli Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government and Sri M. Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2
Original Application. The Tribunal by placing reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others Vs., Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others1, allowed the Original Application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment held that under the following circumstances, no recovery can be effected:
"(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-HI and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
It is evident from a reading of the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal that in similar circumstances, obviously placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed batch of Original Applications. In the absence of any
2015(4) SCC 34.
3
error or infirmity in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to meddle with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Though it is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent herein had given undertaking for recovery of excess payment by the petitioners erroneously, no such record was placed before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is a settled and well established principle of law that there cannot be waiver against law, as such the said contention cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
dismissed. No order as to costs.
S. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications, if any, pending in this case, shall stand closed.
SDI- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANTREGISTRAR
IITRUECOPY!! SECTIONOFFICER
To, 1.One CC to Sri M Bhaskar, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CCto Sri Mafampalli Srinivas, (Central Govt. Counsel) [OPUC]
RAM
HIGH COURT
DATED:12/09/2023
ORDER
WP.No.7454 of 2020
5W
DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
pF ANDHRq p~9
0 9 N0V 2023 y
y * Current section * '/
~~SPATCI'1~~~
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal order refusing to enforce recovery of excess pension payments.
Whether an undertaking by the retired employee knowing the law constitutes a valid waiver against statutory prohibition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq MasihRelied on¶36
State of Punjab & others Vs., Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others
Union of India, rep. by its The Chairman, Railway Board
South Central Railway
The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, South Central Railway
The Chief Personal Officer and Ex. Officio Chairman, Pension Adalat, South Central Railway
The Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal Division
Senior Divisional Finance Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal Division
A.V.Sesha Sai
R.Raghnandan Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
