Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Smt Runu Bhadra vs N.F.Railway — CAT (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
CAT
2026
Smt Runu Bhadra vs N.F.RailwaySmt Runu Bhadra v. N.F.Railway

Smt Runu Bhadra v. N.F.Railway

CAT22 Sept 2026O.A./175/2024

Case summary

From the record, as published by the registry

Recorded against

Guwahati

This is one of 611 Original Application cases decided by the CAT in 2026.

Filed as

Original ApplicationJudgment2026

A

1

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH

Original A pplication No. 040/00175/2024

HON’BLE MR RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MS MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Smt. Runu Bhad r a, wife of late Birendra Nath Bhad r a, Retd. Assistant Vigilan c e Officer/Traffic, Neel Kanta Apartment, Kalpana, P.O. – Bhaktinagar, Dist – Jalpaiguri, Wes t Bengal, Pin – 734007.

…Applicant

-Versus-

The Union of l n dia, through General Manager N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati- 78101 1, Assam.

General Ma n ager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon G u wahati781011, Assa m .

General Manager (P), N.F. Railway, Maligaon G u wahati781011, Assa m .

Deputy Chie f Personnel Officer, N.F. Railway, M aligaon, Guwahati – 1 1 .

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: CAT
Decided on: 22 Sept 2026 · September
Case no.: O.A./175/2024
Case type: Original Application

An original application before a tribunal, most commonly a service dispute before the Central or a State Administrative Tribunal.

All orders in this case

2 orders share this CNR

1 May 2024Order 1
22 Sept 2026Order 2 — this page

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

Nearest Original Application decided by the CAT

Janaki Ballav Mohanty vs Labour and Employment (Ms)
21 Sept 2026
Smt Suman Devi vs North Central Railway
21 Sept 2026
Rayees Ahmad Sheikh vs Health and Medical Education Department
21 Sept 2026
Dr Govind Buchi Reddy vs Ayush
21 Sept 2026

Cite this judgement

Smt Runu Bhadra v. N.F.Railway, O.A./175/2024 (CAT), decided on 22 September 2026.

The Central Administrative Tribunal publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Chief Vigilan c e Officer cum SDGM, NFR/MLG, G u wahati781011, Assa m .

...Respondents

Present:

For applicant(s): Dr. G.J. Sharma & Ms. K. Bhattac h arjee For respondents: Sri R. Hazarika, Addl. CGSC

Date of Hearing: 20.08.2026 Date of Order: 22.09.2026

O.A. No. 175/2024

BASUMATARYPRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY

2

ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The husband of the applicant, a retired officer of the

Northeast Frontier Railway, has filed the instant Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the retroactive downgradation of his pay, the recovery executed from his settlement dues, and the subsequent suppression of his regular pensionary allocations.

The applicant has sought the following principal

reliefs:

“8.1. The reduction of Pay from Rs. 8,000 in the post of AVO/T/HQ to Rs.7500/-, after promotion as AVO/T/HQ with Railway Board's approval, be set aside and quashed.

8.2. The Pay fixed as Rs 8000/- on promotion as AVO/T w.e.f. 07.04.1998 and payments made to applicant accordingly be restored and correct pay fixed upto 31.10.2000.

8.3. The recovery made on reduction of Pay from Rs.8000/-to Rs. 7500/- be paid to applicant with interest.

8.4. The retirement benefits be calculated and granted with correct last pay drawn as AVO/T Prayer 8.2 above with Payment of arrears with interest.

8.5. Applicant's current Pension be fixed following relief in Prayer 8.4 above.

O.A. No. 175/2024

BASUMATARYPRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY

3

8.6. The letter dated 4.3.2024 (Annexure A1) and the order there in stating applicant's "Pay was fixed on promotion to ACM/Gr B Post..." be set aside and quashed.

8.7. Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case. The above prayers are made on the grounds stated in para 5 above.”

At the outset of the final arguments, Dr. G.J. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, brought to the notice of this Tribunal that during the pendency of this Original Application, the original applicant, Shri Birendra Nath Bhadra , unfortunately passed away on 06.02.2025. Accordingly, a Miscellaneous Application for substitution was preferred, and vide this Tribunal's order dated 06.06.2025 passed in M.A. No. 109/2025, his legally wedded wife, Smt. Runu Bhadra, was officially substituted as the applicant to prosecute the cause of action. The cause of action survives in full, as the impugned pay reduction directly impacts the family pensionary safety and estate rights of the substituted widow.

Facts of the case as submitted in the O.A. are that the husband of the applicant was initially appointed in the NF Railway as Engine Cleaner on 03.02.1959. With successive

O.A. No. 175/2024

BASUMATARYPRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY

4

promotions, he joined as Chief Vigilance Inspector (G) on 15.05.1990 in the 4^th CPC pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200/-. Thereafter, he regularly got annual increment on 1^st May of every year in terms of Para 1318 of IREC. On 01.01.1996, his pay was fixed in the 6^th CPC corresponding pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- with basic pay of Rs. 7100/- as on 01.01.1996. His basic pay on grant of annual increment thereafter are as under:

As on 01.05.1996- Rs. 7300/-. As on 01.05.1997-Rs. 7500/-.

The husband of the applicant was granted promotion to the post of Enquiry Officer in the pay of Rs. 20003200/- [corresponding pay of Rs. 6500-10500 in the 5^th CPC] on 08.01.1998 and his basic pay remained Rs. 7500/-. Thereafter, he qualified the promotional examination and was promoted as Assistant Vigilance Officer/T/HQ in the higher pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 by order dated 07.04.1998. He gave option for fixation of his pay from the date of next increment due on 01.05.1998 by letter dated 06.05.1998. Accordingly, he was granted 2 increments on 01.05.1998 at

O.A. No. 175/2024

BASUMATARYPRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY

5

Rs. 250 each as annual increment and promotional increment and his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 8000/-(Rs. 7500 + Rs 250 + Rs. 250), promotional increment in terms of para 1313 and annual increment in terms of para 1318 of IREC. He was also entitled to basic pay with annual increment as Rs. 8250 as on 01.05.1999 and Rs. 8500 as on 01.05.2000. He retired on

superannuation on 31.10.2000. Although his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 8000/- as on 01.05.1998 but the same was reduced to Rs. 7500/- after 11 months without issuing any order and without any opportunity of being heard. The husband of the applicant submitted representation on 13.04.1999 to the Dy. Chief Personnel Officer (Gazetted), Maligaon, N.F. Railway and regularly represented thereafter including raising grievance in CPGRAM to remove anomalies in pay fixation being a recurring and continuous cause of action in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors . [ 1995 SCC (5) 628 ]. However, his claim has been rejected by impugned speaking order dated 04.03.2024 against which the deceased

O.A. No. 175/2024

BASUMATARYPRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY

6

employee had approached this Tribunal. He expired during the pendency of the O.A. on 06.02.2025.

As per Dr. G.J. Sharma, learned counsel for the

applicant, the respondents could not decide on the representation of the deceased husband against reduction of pay from Rs. 8000-7500/- and ultimately by letter dated 04.03.2024 decided that his pay was fixed on promotion to ACM Gr. B post as Rs. 7500/-. As per the applicant, he husband was never posted as ACM, Gr. B and his posting as AVO/T was with the approval of Railway Board.

Respondents have filed their written statement and

states that the matter is barred by limitation as the issue is more than 27 years old as on date. Moreover, it is a settled law that a stale or dead claim cannot be revived through belated representations and its responses, if any, from the Administrative Authorities. In this case the husband of the applicant has filed this Original Application mainly to pay fixed as Rs. 8000/- on promotion as Assistant Vigilance Officer/Traffic w.e.f 07.04.1998 and payments made to applicant accordingly be restored and correct pay fixed

O.A. No. 175/2024

BASUMATARYPRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY

7

upto 31/10/2000. As per extant law, the issue of limitation or

delay and latches should be considered with reference to the Original cause of action. They have also cited the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No.1577 of 2019 ( Union of India & Ors-Vs- C.Girija & Ors ), Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India , AIR 1992 SC 1414 and Union of India vs. Harnam Singh , (1993) 2 SCC 162 and Rattan Chand Samanta Vs Union of India , [ 1994 SCC (L&S) 182 )].

They further states that the husband of the applicant had lodged a Complaint dated 24.01.2024 with CPGRAMS (Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System) Portal which was taken up by the General Manager (Personnel )/Maligaon and accordingly, a detail reply to his complaint was served to the husband of the applicant vide letter dated 04.03.2024, wherein it has been mentioned that after thorough examination of the case as per records, it is found that the pay as fixed on promotion to Gr. B. and on his retirement are in order. The respondents have also brought our notice apropos pay fixation on promotion and prior to

O.A. No. 175/2024

BASUMATARYPRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY

8

promotion of the deceased husband of the applicant in

Group-B as follows:

(i) Pay fixed on promotion in the scale of Rs.2000/3200/as on 15.05.1990=Rs.2000/-

(ii) Pay fixed as per 5^th CPC in the scale of Rs.6500/--10500/ as on 01.01.1996=Rs.6700/-

(iii) Pay fixed on promotion as Assistant Vigilance 5 Officer/Traffic/HQ w.e.f. 07.04.1998 =Rs.7500/- in the Scale of Rs. 7500/- 12000/-.

(iv) Pay raised to Rs.7750/w.e.f. 01.04.1999 due to annual increment.

(v) Pay raised to Rs.8000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2000 due to annual increment.

As per the respondents, applicant was empanelled for the

post of Assistant Commercial Manager (Gr. B) against 30% vacancies and was appointed to officiate in Gr. B service and posted as Assistant Vigilance Officer/Traffic/Maligaon w.e.f. 07.04.1998. Accordingly, on his promotion to Gr. B as Assistant Vigilance Officer/Traffic/Maligaon, his pay was fixed w.e.f. 07.04.1998 at Rs. 7500/- (Scale 7500-12000). The pay of

the applicant was fixed by granting annual increment to Rs. 8000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2000 and he retired from Railway service

O.A. No. 175/2024

BASUMATARYPRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY

9

on 31.10.2000; as such, all his retirement dues including monthly pension has been paid as per last basic pay, i.e. Rs. 8000/-. In view of the above, allegation of the applicant that his basic pay was previously fixed at Rs. 8000/- is not supported by any documents.

We have heard Dr. G.J. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R. Hazarika, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents and perused the judgments placed by the parties. We have also scrutinized the entire conspectus of the case.

The respondents' preliminary objection regarding limitation is legally untenable. The law regarding errors in pay fixation and subsequent pension calculations has been explicitly settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. [1995 SCC (5) 628] [ 1995 SCC (5) 628 ] and subsequently reinforced in Union Of India & Anr vs Tarsem Singh on 13 August, 2008.

The Apex Court has ruled that a proper pay fixation

is a right that arises every month when the salary or pension is calculated. If an employee's pay is incorrectly fixed or

O.A. No. 175/2024

BASUMATARYPRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY

10

reduced, it results in a continuous wrong that gives rise to a recurring and continuous cause of action every month [ M.R. Gupta (supra) ]. While the recovery of very old arrears may be restricted by the court based on equity, the claim to correct the underlying pay scale and adjust the ongoing pension cannot be dismissed as a stale claim. The record indicates a significant administrative oversight by the respondents. The impugned speaking order dated 04.03.2024 states that the late employee's pay was fixed at Rs. 7,500/- based on a promotion to the post of "ACM Group B." However, the undisputed service history shows that the employee was never posted as an Assistant Commercial Manager (ACM); rather, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Vigilance Officer ( AVO/T/HQ) with the explicit approval of the Railway Board. An administrative order based on an incorrect understanding of basic service facts cannot be sustained under the law.

The late employee’s basic pay was Rs. 7,500/- prior to his promotion. Upon being promoted to the higher scale of Rs. 7,500–12,000/-, he exercised his option to defer fixation

O.A. No. 175/2024

BASUMATARYPRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY

11

until his next regular increment date (01.05.1998) under the provisions of the IREC. On that date, he was entitled to both his regular annual increment (Para 1318) and his promotional increment (Para 1313). The addition of these two increments accurately brought his basic pay to Rs. 8,000 /- . Reducing his pay back to Rs. 7,500/- after eleven months without a written

order, notice, or a personal hearing is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [(2015) 4 SCC 334] has explicitly ruled that retroactive pay reductions and financial recoveries from retired employees, conducted in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation on their part, are impermissible in law. The late employee spent his post-retirement life representing his case, and his widow, Smt. Runu Bhadra, has had to continue this legal challenge to protect her family pension. The respondents' actions are factually incorrect and legally unsustainable.

In view of the above findings, this Original Application is allowed. The impugned speaking order dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure-A/1) is hereby quashed and set aside.

O.A. No. 175/2024

BASUMATARYPRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY

12

The Respondents are directed to restore the late employee’s correct basic pay fixation at Rs. 8,000 /- w.e.f. 01.05.1998, and sequentially update his annual increments to Rs. 8,250/(w.e.f. 01.05.1999) and Rs. 8,500/- (w.e.f. 01.05.2000) up to his date of retirement on 31.10.2000. The Respondents shall calculate and refund all financial amounts recovered from

the late employee’s retiral benefits or pension to the substituted applicant, Smt. Runu Bhadra, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Respondents are further directed to re-fix the regular Family Pension of the substituted applicant, Smt. Runu Bhadra, based on the corrected last pay drawn of her late husband.

Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA) MEMBER (A)

(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) MEMBER (J)

PB

O.A. No. 175/2024

BASUMATARYPRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY