Virendra Singh vs South East Central Railway

OA No.189/2021

1

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.189/2021

¶5

Dated this Friday the 11th September, 2026

¶6

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
 Hon’ble Shri Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

¶7

Shri Virendra Singh
Age 61 Years,
S/o Netrapal Singh
Retd. SSE (Spl) Dongargarh, South East
Central Railway, Residing at Sakar
Residency, A Wing, Patharli Road,
Dombivli € 421 203.
Email:[email protected]
Mobile:9834301946 ... Applicant

¶8

( By Advocate Shri Vishal Shirke )

¶9

 VERSUS

¶10

1. Union of India, Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=1625, OID.2.5.4.65=399aa54d40324576850c692c7a861e1e, Phone=30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson AlphansoReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:52:14+05'30' Through the General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh – 495 004.

¶11

2. The Divisional General Manager
Nagpur Division,
South East Central Railway,
Kingsway, Nagpur – 440 001. ... Respondents

¶12

( By Advocate Dr. V.S. Masurkar )

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Per: Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)

¶15

The applicant, a retired employee of South

¶16

OA No.189/2021

¶17

2

¶18

East Central Railway, Nagpur Division, has filed this
OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals

¶19

Act, 1985 to claim for the following reliefs:-

¶20

“8.a This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the respondents and after examining the same quash and set aside the letters dated 24/26.12.2016 and letter dated 10.02.2020 (communicated vide letter dated 10.03.2020) with all consequential benefits.

¶21

b. This Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the basic-pay of the applicant of Rs.87100/and accordingly direct the respondents to fix the pension and pensionary benefits of the applicant and pay the arrears arising out therefrom along with interest @Rs.12% p.a.

¶22

c. This Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to hold and declare that the respondents are not entitled to recover any amount from the applicant in pursuance of the impugned letters and the respondents be directed to refund the amount of Rs.214168/- alongwith interest @12% with effect from 01.01.2020 till the date of actual payment.

¶23

d. Costs of the application be provided for.

¶24

Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=1625, OID.2.5.4.65=399aa54d40324576850c692c7a861e1e, Phone=30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson AlphansoReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:52:14+05'30'

¶25

e. Any other and further order as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case be passed.”

¶26

2. It is the case of the applicant that he
retired on superannuation on 31.12.2019. The

¶27

respondents vide impugned order dated 24/26.12.2016
have reduced his basic pay from Rs.87700/- to

¶28

Rs.85100/- from the year 2006 which is after a period
of 13 years. It has been submitted that the impugned
order has been passed just four days before the

¶29

3 OA No.189/2021

¶30

retirement of the applicant and amount of Rs.2,14,168/-
has been illegally recovered from the retirement dues

¶31

of the applicant.

¶32

2.1It is averred that the pay of the applicant

¶33

was correctly fixed in the year 2006. The applicant
had earned promotion on 16.09.2005 and was entitled to
promotional increment on the said date. The applicant
was aware about the upcoming change in the uniform date
of increment of 1st July as on 16.09.2005. Since

¶34

Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=1625, OID.2.5.4.65=399aa54d40324576850c692c7a861e1e, Phone=30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson AlphansoReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:52:14+05'30'

¶35

postponement of promotional increment on the day of
normal increment was beneficial, the applicant was
advised to opt for promotional increment in February,
2006, which was his normal date of increment. The
applicant was, accordingly, granted promotional
increment and normal increment in February, 2006.
Because another increment fell due on 01st July, 2006

¶36

on account of change in the date of increment, the
applicant was granted further increment on 01st July,
2006. Now the applicant’s increment granted in
February, 2006 is apparently withdrawn, with the result

¶37

the applicant has completely lost his promotional
increment, to which he was entitled to upon earning

¶38

4 OA No.189/2021

¶39

the promotion. If at all the respondents had problem
in granting next increment immediately on 01st July,
2006, the respondents could have preponed the
promotional increment of applicant from February, 2006

¶40

to September, 2005. However, this is not done. Thus,
the impugned action of the respondents had resulted in
complete wiping of applicant’s promotional increment.
2.2It is submitted that without prejudice to the
aforesaid impugned action of recovery is in gross
violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq

¶41

Masih White Washer and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334. The

¶42

applicant’s recovery is made by the said judgment, in

¶43

Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=1625, OID.2.5.4.65=399aa54d40324576850c692c7a861e1e, Phone=30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson AlphansoReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:52:14+05'30'

¶44

that the period of recovery is in excess of 5 years.
The recovery is also made at the time of retirement of
the applicant. Therefore, the impugned recovery
deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶45

3. After issuance of notice, the respondents have

¶46

filed their reply and contested the OA. It has been
submitted that the pay fixation on promotion as Senior

¶47

Section Engineer in scale of Rs.7450-11500 was
erroneously fixed at Rs.8350/- i.e. date of increment

¶48

OA No.189/2021

¶49

5

¶50

01.02.2006 on option made by the applicant whereas his
date of promotion is 16.09.2005 (admittedly in the old
pay scale). It is, therefore, submitted that the action
of the respondents of rectifying the serious error is

¶51

permissible in law and hence the action is well within
law. The OA, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with
cost.

¶52

3.1It is submitted that as the promotion gets
effective from September, 2005, he would get fixation
on 16.09.2005 in old scale Rs.7450-11500 @ Pay 8125.
The pre-revised pay on 01.01.2006 comes to

¶53

Rs.8125(scale 7450-11500) which is fixed at Rs.15120

¶54

plus Grade Pay 4600 in the VIth Pay Commission on

¶55

Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=1625, OID.2.5.4.65=399aa54d40324576850c692c7a861e1e, Phone=30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson AlphansoReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:52:14+05'30'

¶56

01.01.2006 thereafter on 01.07.2006 at Rs.15720 + 4600.

¶57

He was granted IIIrd MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008 in pay
scale Rs.17610 + 4800. Thus, the pre-revised pay on
31.12.2015 is Rs.22800 + Grade Pay 4800 which gets

¶58

fixed at Rs.72100 as on 01.01.2016 in the VIIth Pay
Commission followed by increments upto 01.12.2019 and
finally pay as on 31.12.2019 stands at Rs.85100/- after
increment and certified by Associate Accounts, based
on the last pay drawn at Rs.85100/-.

¶59

6 OA No.189/2021

¶60

3.2It has been submitted that all the above
irregularities have been rectified and pay was
correctly revised at Rs.85,100/- before the retirement
of the applicant.

¶61

3.3It has been further submitted that the pay
reduced from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2019, the overpayment
had been prepared and after vetting by Associate
Accounts, the same was recovered from his settlement
dues to the extent of Rs.2,14,168.

¶62

4. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating
and elaborating the averments made in the OA. Further,
no new points have been made.

¶63

Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=1625, OID.2.5.4.65=399aa54d40324576850c692c7a861e1e, Phone=30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson AlphansoReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:52:14+05'30'

¶64

5. During arguments, learned counsel for the
applicant has submitted that before passing the
impugned order and recovering an amount of
Rs.2,14,168/-, no show cause notice was given to the

¶65

applicant which is in violation of the principles of
natural justice. He further submitted that the impugned
order has been passed in violation of the judgment of

¶66

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih White Washer (supra) and the consequent OM issued by the DoPT F.No.18/03/2015-Estt.(Pay-1) dated 02.03.2016.

¶67

7 OA No.189/2021

¶68

Therefore, it is in the violation of principles of
natural justice. He has placed reliance on the
following judgement :

¶69

(i) Thomas Daniel V. State of Kerala and Others, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010 decided on 02.05.2022.

¶70

6. Learned counsel for the respondents Dr. V.S.
Masurkar on the other hand has vehemently argued that

¶71

the applicant was issued pay slips by the department
every month and the applicant has not produced the said

¶72

pay slips. He submitted that the applicant was very
well aware that he is getting excess pay to which he

¶73

is not entitled. He submitted that no employee can take

¶74

Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=1625, OID.2.5.4.65=399aa54d40324576850c692c7a861e1e, Phone=30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson AlphansoReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:52:14+05'30'

¶75

the benefit of the excess pay which is over and above
his entitlement. He submitted that the impugned order

¶76

was issued on 24.12.2019 while the applicant was
retiring on 31.12.2019 but the applicant did not

¶77

challenge it for 3 years and file the OA on 19.01.2021.
He submitted that for correction of error in the pay

¶78

fixation, no show cause notice is required to be issued
as it is not a penalty and, therefore, there is no
violation of principles of natural justice.

¶79

8 OA No.189/2021

¶80

6.1 Dr. Masurkar further submitted that the

¶81

promotion order dated 15.09.2005 by which he was
promoted as Senior Section Engineer (P.Way) in the
scale of Rs.7450-11500 has been supressed by the
applicant and, therefore, the OA should be dismissed
on the ground of suppression of facts. He submitted
that the applicant has made representation dated
17.09.2005 requesting for pay fixation in the higher
scale after getting his normal increment in February,
2006 and, therefore, his pay in the higher grade of
Rs.7450-225-11500 should be fixed. Thus, the higher

¶82

pay was fixed by the respondents as per the
representation of the applicant.

¶83

Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=1625, OID.2.5.4.65=399aa54d40324576850c692c7a861e1e, Phone=30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson AlphansoReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:52:14+05'30' 6.2 Dr. Masurkar has placed reliance on the following judgments :

¶84

(i) State of Kerala and Another Vs. P.V. Neelakandan Nair and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 561.

¶85

(ii) Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana and Others Vs. Israil Khan and Others, (2010) 1 SCC 440.

¶86

(ii) High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others Vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267.

¶87

9 OA No.189/2021

¶88

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the pleadings and documents filed on
record.

¶89

8. It is not in dispute that the basic pay of the

¶90

applicant in the month of October, 2019 was Rs.87,700/-
which has been reduced to Rs.85,100/- vide impugned
order without giving him any opportunity of being
heard. Shri Shirke, learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that though the impugned communication is

¶91

dated 24/26.12.2016 (Annexure A-1) but it is a
typographical error as it talks of the applicant
retiring on 31.12.2019. In his reply, Dr. V.S.
Masurkar, learned counsel for the respondents

¶92

Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=1625, OID.2.5.4.65=399aa54d40324576850c692c7a861e1e, Phone=30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson AlphansoReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:52:14+05'30'

¶93

submitted that the impugned communication is dated
24/26.12.2016 only as it talks of that applicant will
be retiring on 31.12.2019 and, therefore, there is no
typographical mistake. However, from the

¶94

representation of the applicant dated 27.12.2019
(Annexure A-4), he has mentioned that he has received

¶95

the said letter dated 26.12.2019 in which it has been

¶96

mentioned that one extra increment is given in fixation
of 06th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and his last

¶97

10 OA No.189/2021

¶98

pay has been reduced to Rs.85,100/- from Rs.87,000/-
without giving any proper period for explaining from

¶99

his side as the impugned communication was received
just four days before his retirement when he was due

¶100

to retire on 31.12.2019. The contention of the

¶101

respondents is that the applicant himself has requested
for pay fixation in the higher scale after getting his
normal increment in February, 2006 to Rs.7450-225-
11500/- vide his letter dated 17.09.2005 and,

¶102

therefore, the department has every right to refix the
same when it came to their notice.

¶103

9. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a
Group ‘C’ employee. Even assuming that the said pay

¶104

Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=1625, OID.2.5.4.65=399aa54d40324576850c692c7a861e1e, Phone=30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson AlphansoReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:52:14+05'30'

¶105

was fixed after his representation dated 17.09.2005,
it is not the case of the respondents that the
applicant has made any wrong representation or played

¶106

any fraud with the respondents. The Railway has very
robust system of Accounting as they have full fledged
Accounts and Finance Department and they have full
fledged service under them called as ‘Indian Railway
Accounts Service’ (IRAS) and, therefore, the

¶107

respondents cannot take the plea that his pay was fixed

¶108

11 OA No.189/2021

¶109

as per his representation dated 17.09.2005. If that is
the case then any employee can claim any salary and
the respondents will give the same to the employee when
it is not permissible. It is also not in dispute that
the pay was fixed in 2006 on the basis of his increment.
Thus, he was getting pay in accordance with the 6th Pay
Commission till the impugned order was passed.

¶110

10 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq

¶111

Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) in para 18(i) has held

¶112

that recovery from the employees belonging to Class
III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D

¶113

service)cannot be recovered when the same is given for more than 5 years. Pursuant to the above judgment of Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=1625, OID.2.5.4.65=399aa54d40324576850c692c7a861e1e, Phone=30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson AlphansoReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:52:14+05'30' Hon’ble Supreme Court, the DoPT has issued instructions vide Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016 with respect

¶114

to ‘ Recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government servants. ’

¶115

11.Subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

¶116

case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala and Others (supra) has held as under:

¶117

“(13) In State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others wherein this court examined the validity of an order passed by the State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiary employees in excess of their entitlements without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. This Court considered situations of hardship caused to an employee, if

¶118

OA No.189/2021

¶119

12

¶120

recovery is directed to reimburse the employer and disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery. It was held thus:

¶121

“8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover.

¶122

xxx xxx xxx

¶123

18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

¶124

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

¶125

Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=1625, OID.2.5.4.65=399aa54d40324576850c692c7a861e1e, Phone=30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson AlphansoReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:52:14+05'30'

¶126

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

¶127

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

¶128

(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.

¶129

(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.”

¶130

(14) Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not contended before us that on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the excess amounts have been paid. The appellant has retired on 31.03.1999. In fact, the case of the respondents is that excess payment was made due to a mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules which was subsequently pointed out by the

¶131

OA No.189/2021

¶132

13

¶133

Accountant General.

¶134

(15) Having regard to the above, we are of the view that an attempt to recover the said increments after passage of ten years of his retirement is unjustified.”

¶135

respondents on the judgements of State of Kerala and Another vs. P.V. Neelakandan Nair and Others (supra) , High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others Vs. Jagdev Singh (supra) and Registrar, Cooperative

¶136

Societies Haryana and Others Vs. Israil Khan and Others (supra) is of no help to them as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) in para 11 of the judgment has held that the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

¶137

Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) in clause (ii) cannot apply to the situation wherein the officer to whom the payment

¶138

Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=1625, OID.2.5.4.65=399aa54d40324576850c692c7a861e1e, Phone=30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson AlphansoReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:52:14+05'30'

¶139

was made in the first instance was clearly placed on
notice that any payment found to have been made in
excess would be required to be refunded. In that case,

¶140

the officer furnished an undertaking while opting for
the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.
13. We find that the applicant herein has never
given any such undertaking. He only made a request that
he was promoted as SSE(P.Way) in the scale of Rs.7450-
225-11500 vide order dated 16.09.2005 and, therefore,

¶141

14 OA No.189/2021

¶142

requested for pay fixation in the higher scale. Moreover, in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) , the officer was a Civil Judge (Junior Division) who was promoted as Additional Civil Judge, while in the case under consideration, the applicant is a Group ‘C’ employee which is covered by clause (i) of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Mashi (supra) .

¶143

14 . We find from the pay slip of the applicant for the month of October, 2019 that in the month of October, he was given basic pay of Rs.87,700/- and, therefore, it appears that impugned communication was issued in 2019 and not in 2016. The respondents have not disputed the representation of the applicant dated Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=1625, OID.2.5.4.65=399aa54d40324576850c692c7a861e1e, Phone=30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson AlphansoReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:52:14+05'30' 27.12.2019 in which he has mentioned that he has received the impugned communication on 26.12.2019.

¶144

15. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion
that reducing of the basic pay of the applicant from
Rs.87,700/- to Rs.85,100/- and recovering of

¶145

Rs.2,14,168/- is not in accordance with rules and
cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned
communications are quashed and set aside. The
respondents are directed to refund the amount of

¶146

15 OA No.189/2021

¶147

Rs.2,14,168/-, if it has been recovered from the
applicant and restore his basic pay to Rs.87700/- and

¶148

issue revised PPO accordingly. The said exercise shall
be carried out within a period of 90 days from the date

¶149

of receipt of a certified copy of the order. However,
the claim of the applicant to grant interest @12% p.a.
on the arrears arising out therefrom is rejected.

¶150

16. Accordingly, the Original Application is
partly allowed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No
order as to costs.

¶151

Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=1625, OID.2.5.4.65=399aa54d40324576850c692c7a861e1e, Phone=30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson AlphansoReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:52:14+05'30'

¶152

(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna)

¶153

 Member (J) Member (A)

¶154

ma.

Virendra Singh v. South East Central Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Singh v. South East Central Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prajakta Prashant Wade vs Central Railway

Dilip Deorao Ukey vs Central Railway

Atul Sirjerao Thakare vs Central Ground Water Board

Prashik Anil Ramteke vs Income Tax Department

Shishir Kumar Sirvastava vs Union of India

Vijay Kumar vs Union of India

Dilip Kumar Pandey vs Union of India

Atul Mishra vs Secretary