Authority: High Court of Judicature at Patna

Order Date: 09-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Jhapas Hajara, son of Late Shakal Hazara, retired Mate under SSE (P. Way) E.C. Railway, superannuated on 30-04-2018 after 25 years 5 months of service.
  • Respondents: Union of India (through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur), Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Samastipur, D.R.M. (P), Samastipur, Divisional Finance Manager, E.C. Railway, Samastipur, Divisional Railway Manager (Engg.), E.C. Railway, Samastipur.
  • Background: On 01-05-2018 the petitioner received retirement benefits via RTGS totaling Rs 9,70,359. Subsequently, Rs 30,000 was deducted under the Retired Employees' Liberalized Health Scheme (RELHS) and Rs 2,39,001 was adjusted from his Death‑cum‑Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) for alleged over‑payment.
  • Petitioner’s Actions: Protested the deductions at the DRM Samastipur meeting hall, filed multiple representations, and lodged Original Application O.A. No.050/666/2018 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT directed disposal of the representation within three weeks (order dated 13-08-2018).
  • Speaking Order (26-10-2018): Divisional Railway Manager (Personal), Samastipur confirmed deductions, stating the petitioner had taken 1,727 days of leave without pay (LWP) and had opted for RELHS, leading to the Rs 2,39,001 and Rs 30,000 adjustments.
  • Connected Application (O.A. No.050/00089/2019): Petitioner sought quash of the speaking orders and repayment of Rs 2,69,001 with 12% compound interest.
  • Respondents’ Argument: Cited Rule 15 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which permits recovery of government/railway dues, including over‑payment and LWP adjustments, from pensionary benefits. Asserted the deductions were lawful and made before retirement (no‑dues certificate dated 18-04-2018).
  • Petitioner’s Reliance: Supreme Court judgment State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih & Ors. (2015) that excess payments to Class‑III/IV employees should not be recovered.
  • Respondents’ Supporting Precedents: Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana & Ors. vs. Israil Khan & Ors. (2010) and B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India (2006), emphasizing that recovery is permissible when excess payment is known and corrected promptly.

Final Outcome

  • The Patna High Court, per the judgment of Justices Mohit Kumar Shah and Sourendra Pandey, held that the deductions were made prior to the petitioner’s retirement and complied with Rule 15 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
  • The court found the petitioner had knowledge of the excess payment and failed to voluntarily refund it; therefore, the ratio in Rafiq Masih was not applicable.
  • Consequently, the CAT’s order dated 12-05-2026 dismissing the original application was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Topics: Retirement Gratuity Deduction, Railway Service Law